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.
The last review of this article carried out in November 2005 found a number of improvements could be made and these are listed below. I was hoping that now time has passed and plenty of work at improving this article by many has been undertaken, there could be a fresh critique and new ideas can be put into the mix. As a result, I hope to put the article up as a candidate for the Featured Article section of the Main Page at a later date. Previous messages and recommendations are below. Thank you to all participants. Wikiwoohoo18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previous review from November 2005
Having just posted this as a candidate to be a Featured Article, it would be good to know what others feel is needed here. The first objection stated some aspects that were missing, I was hoping even more could be spotted so the article could be made to an even higher standard. Wikiwoohoo18:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brief review:
The lead should be increased in size and summarise the entire article.
history could be lengthened
=Output= -- rephrase that and convert to prose.
Reduce subsections
The page has a high % of lists. Featured articles cannot have listy material
Newsreaders not req
What about the finances of BBC?
References needed. Without that it cannot be featured.
Mention how BBC news is viewed around the world. Is it considered credible. Also include ratings etc.
The past 15 years overwhelm the article. You have less then one and half paragraphs on seventy years of history and four subsections on just fifteen years. Opinions on BBC News is even worse in this regard, basically it only goes into the past several years and has entire subsections on single events. There is an entire section on the reporting of the Iraq war and nothing about World War II. Information about recent events might be slightly larger than other time periods because there is more information available, but the history of BBC News, including its politics, need to be treated equally. I noticed you only use online sources, you should go to a library and take out a book for more information. Refereces also need to be properly formatted. Medvedenko23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Medvedenko is right. The history is entirely post-1990, ignores radio, and seems to be based on what the other media say. I think the article lacks perspective. It could do with a few more comparisons. And it needs a lot of expansion on early history.
"..faces competition from Sky News and ITN, although the ITN News Channel (also known as the ITV News Channel) has now ceased broadcasting in the UK." .. reads strangely. Does ITN broadcast outside the UK?
Loads about the use (or lack) of the term "terrorist" in this century. Compare it with previous BBC practice: has it changed? I can't remember what it called the IRA, for example (my memory is that there was a trend to call them criminals, but whether that was the government, the media, individuals, or even official policy, I can't remember).
About three sentences about radio, in total, in the entire article? There is tons to expand on there.
What is the relationship between BBC News and the World Service? (Which of the two was responsible for dropping the Arabic language service (a gap subsequently filled by Al Jazeera? If it was the news people, this is probably worth including.)
What is the relationship between BBC News and BBC Monitoring?
Headings and subheadings do not need to be in titlecase. Lowercase anything which isn't actually a proper noun.
I believe the formal dress of early TV newsreaders was said to be because they were guests in your house and thus should dress smartly. Is it possible to find a source for that and include it?
If BBC News (rather than the children's department) was responsible for John Craven's Newsround, you definitely have to include that: Newsround covered quite amazing topics for its time.
Agree that the history needs expanding - particularly "early years" - no mention of TV News at AP in the 1960s for instance - the birthplace of BBC TV News and where the first colour news programmes came from in 1968 (?) - no reference to this in Alexandra Palace either.
Zir12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a lot of cleanup work on this page and I think it looks pretty good, but before I nominate it for FA I would like to hear what people have to say about it. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. --Sportskido8 14:23 EST, 24 August 2006
Note - Sportskido opened this PR page prior to submitting it for FA status; however, it was never posted on the main PR page and thus went uncommented. The page failed FA nomination the first time; this is in an attempt to follow the correct procedures before re-submission for FA status. Please comment on the page in its current status. AnthonyHit me up...20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally posted on the main page, but nobody responded to it. --Sportskido8 17:02 CST, 31 August 2006
Just like nobody is responding to it now. --Sportskido8 11:30 CST, 6 September 2006
Well, it looks pretty good; there is a lot of references (though some still need to be filled in, get that fixed before your next FA attempt), good impartiality, and good use of visual aids. To improve, you need some minor but thorough copyedit done; I'll try to get to that myself if I have time next week. Also, some of your sections are not divided correctly. Finally, I think that top of the articles formatting needs to be imporved - there is a big gap between your start paragraph and your first section. I'll see if I can come up with anything else after I copyedit. Didius01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed the section error. I noticed that at least one of your citations isn't working -- 8 or 9 I think -- the one supporting Gretzky's comments. I think you should delete the sentence clause stating the Gretzky stood by his comments in private; none of the refs I checked support that statement and it is a borderline POV issue.
I think you could expand Style of Play. Has that always been their style? How effective was it? How controversial? I am not a hockey expert, but if I were I am sure I could come up with more questions to be answered by this section. Since I am not, it would be more readable to me if you would more clearly [[WP:mos:Explain Jargon|explain jargon], at least briefly.
I agree with comments from the FA reveiw stating that row after row of tables at the bottom grate, but I don't have any real good solution. Maybe if you made smaller tables under each sub heading of the Franchise History section Didius02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dwarf" is a very large subject, and I'm sure there's major missing sections. It would be very useful to know what's left out (especially mythology), any innaccuracies, and to make sure that all notable fantasy series with dwarves of interest are included, whilst pruning any non-notable ones.
Please help find out what's left to do, so it can be done, and help get a consensus on what fantasy series and games count as notable enough to go into the main article, and which should be shunted off into sub-articles. Adam Cuerden16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The chronology skips from Norse mythology to Tolkien: how about intervening folklore and literature? I'm not sure whether Rumpelstiltskin counts - but there's Snow White etc. Somehow I have a hunch that the Internet's many geeks will help you complete the gaming references. What you do need is citations. I also suggest requesting an original translation for the long quote - modern Icelandic is very close to old Norse so perhaps you could direct your request there. At Geoffrey Chaucer and Joan of Arc I did my own translations: wish I could help you with this one. Hope these suggestions help. Durova05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments There's a couple of key points I would like to highlight. From a formatting standpoint, I think the code needs to be cleaned up a bit — some of the [edit] links seem to be dangling outside their boxes. --[Done]. I can work to fix this pretty quick. Other than that, archives need to be created for all subsections in the portal, including "News", "Selected picture", "Selected article" and "Did You Know". --[Done]. How does the selection process for "Selected article" and "Selected picture" work? How are users able to nominate and / or vote for selected content? --[Nomination and selection process has been regularized] These are just some of my initial thoughts...I will continue to provide feedback as more content is incorporated into the portal. Additionally, it might help if we reach out to other Wikipedians like Kirill Lokshin to share their thoughts on areas that need improvement. Hope this helps. AreJay16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, some suggestions (partially repeated from above, as well):
Archives!--[Done]
The "more" link after the featured article is insufficient; the actual title should be linked as well.--[Done]
The selected picture needs to be centered.--[Done]
The gap between the two columns of boxes is too wide; probably the percentages are off by more than one.--[Done]
The gap after the "International ties of Bangladesh" box is too large. In general, I think it may be worthwhile to pull all the links out of the multiple topic boxes at the bottom and create a single box of your own; otherwise, you're going to be dependent on outside formatting for the layout of the portal, which isn't a good idea.--[Spacing problem fixed]
The big problem for a featured portal nomination at this point, however, would be that the portal has no track record of being actively maintained. I would strongly recommend that you set up some form of automatic content rotation, at least for the selected article and picture.--[Done; the selected article/biography/picture for current month will be automatically picked]Kirill Lokshin00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has continuous editing disputes, which often concentrate on details. The overall perspective is poor. As the note at the top implies, it is largely a history of the Zionist movement, and that is not sufficinet for an article with the general title Zionism. It has a disputable linear perspective, "from King David to David Ben-Gurion" . The article would benefit from more theory, and more history other then Jewish history. It needs more background on Jews in 19th-century Europe, and an explanation of why Zionism grew from a minority to a majority opinion among them. (Remember that Zionists said that millions of people should simply migrate to another continent, a far-reaching proposal). Peer review would open up the editing to a wider group, which this article badly needs.Paul11111:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article will never be NPOV if there isn't a balance between sources. Currently, all sources are Israelis or at least western. Arab sources should consist of a great part in this article since this controversial subject is the center of discussion in the Arab world. CG17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Zionism" was created by the Jews and is strongly linked to their history. So, and as long as the article shows undeniable facts, I can't see why Arab sources should be more credible.Free2day20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to find authoritative sources, regardless of who they are, but they must be authoritative. Similarly, opening up the editing to other editors is a good thing, so long as they have read the authoritative sources and have something they can bring to the table. SlimVirgin(talk)20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what Paul111 means by "more theory" and "more history other than Jewish history," and not at all what he means with "poor... overall perspective." --Leifern21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Zionisme issue is directly related to arabs. You can't deny this fact. It was the reason for the controversial Arab-Israeli wars. So Arabs have also a very strong opinion about the issue and have even become part of their history. That's why numerous Arab sources are a must. CG08:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zionism emerged in response to continued oppression and persecution of Jews in Europe.
The Zionist movement's program was/is aimed at promoting the return of Jews to their historical homeland, where Jews would be free from persecution and able to develop their own lives and identity.
The Arabs just took the chance and moved in when the Jews were forced to exile.
There is no record of a land known as Palestine ruled by an Arab leader before 1964, yet they keep telling us that the Zionists have stolen their land...
Also if you have a closer look at the Koran you won't find any reference to a land called "Palestine" or "Palestinian".
Free2day10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zionism may be a Jewish movement, but its historical impact is not limited to Jews, far from it. The article also needs to be more than simply a history of the Zionist movement. I think nationalism theory is the most appropriate perspective for this article, but others (social movement theory) are also relevant.Paul11111:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil and respond to my comments appropriatly. I never mentioned the origins of Zionism nor began a debate about whose fault it is. Wikipedia is not the place for these silly disputes. Like Paul1111 said, the impact of Zionism on Arab people, politics, history is a true fact that should be extensivly explained in the article. Plus, I don't know if you have prejudices, but arab scholars, researches and historians exist and they also have made extensive studies of zionism. Ignoring their ideas is a violation of NPOV policy. CG12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, so you mean that only you and like minded have the right to express your criticism here… but yet you have failed to show where in the article you find biased or less credible information that needs correction from the Arab sources. And why don't you tell us which Arab sources are worth being trusted, could they be the same sources that have inspired Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian President Mahmoud? just wonder...Free2day15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't even answer to your response which in no means can help improving the article. Again, I'll let Wikipedia policies (which I advise you to consider) do the talk:
Oh I see, so you mean that only you and like minded have the right to express your criticism here…
per Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: I'll imagine that Arabs are the only ones in the world which are hostile enough not to comply to the zionist/israeli/jew/american/western (you choose the word) school of thought. According to the article Arab, there may be 250-300 million of them in the word. Again according to the policy:
the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
Which means that these 250 millions arabs deserve (no they don't even deserve to exist), should have their viewpoint fairly represented in the article. And how could they have been represented if not one of their sources is used?
And again, please be civil. Wikipedia is a centre for all opinions, ideas and thoughts in the world. And every user (even terrorists like me) should have their words considered. Your behavior for criticising and attacking everyone which objects to you ideas won't lead to any solution and will make Wikipedia a harder place to live :) Anyway, I see that you are a new user and I recommend you to read the list of policies that every user must respect. If you're too lazy :-) try the five pillars of Wikipedia and thee extremely important Neutral point of view and the civility policies. And if you need anything just tell me. Thank you. CG05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown you my point of view (My opinion) about the issue here without accusing anyone in particular, it's not my fault if you consider yourself accused just because I have a different opinion. And, you still have failed to show us where in the article you find biased or less credible information that needs correction from the Arab sources. So, enlighten us!
According to the article Arab, there may be 250-300 million of them in the word.
Oh, do you mean that the Zionism aimed at promoting the return of Jews to their historical homeland (the tiny Israel) has directly affected 250-300 millions of Arabs all over the world?!! Free2day20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why only Arab sources? Judging by the amount of attention to Zionism, it directly affected the entire planet. Malaysia, for example, is quite outspoken on the subject. Shall we quote Mahathir Mohamad? CG, you are wrong saying that "Wikipedia is a centre for all opinions, ideas and thoughts in the world." WP is an encyclopedia, see also WP:NOT and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiensну?09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that more neutral sources need to be used in the article. The article should make it more clear that Zionism is nationalism and is based on the same ideas as all forms of nationalism. Right now it promotes a nationalist mythology. Also there needs to be heavy, neutral COI monitoring. I would use the word "patrolled," to describe the articles state right now, and a little bit of enforcement of COI would go a long way. SOme of the comments here are enlightening as to the extent of the COI problems. I would be surprised if anyone would tolerate an article about Serbian nationalism being edited primarily by outspoken Serbian nationalists, but that is the case with this article. Basejumper200:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking to eventually make this a Featured Article candidate, so I'm open to any suggestions about how to improve the article. The article is fairly comprehensive and includes most everything factual that history records about Catiline. Though, should I add a section about how his contemporaries viewed him? Perhaps, should I go into more detail about the specific events of the conspiracy? Cmcentee23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article would benefit if it had background and legacy sections: what were the political conditions of Rome leading up to his career and what effect, if any, did his rebellion have on the Roman republic? I see a fairly comprehensive summary of one life and would like to understand its greater meaning in historical context. The article itself is well written, although I noticed a bit more passive voice than seemed necessary. I suggest eliminating redlinks by creating a couple of stub articles as appropriate. Also, I was surprised to see no reference in support of the assertion that Catiline was not involved in the first Catiline conspiracy. This seems like good work so far (although my limited background on the subject restricts my ability to comment). Keep going: I think you'll have an FA in a few months. Durova05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make this a featured article. Please give any suggestions for improvement (outside of the short lead; I already know about that) so this can article be made better. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand it, for a potential FAC it is much too short. Also, the lovely images seem oddly placed; look into varying their placement, and avoid aligning any pictures with the TOC. -Fsotrain0919:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lengthened the lead section and added a section on appearances on stamps. Please explain which images you think are oddly placed. I could move one image further down although it would have little to do with those sections. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the article again, the image placement seems fine now. Sorry if I frustrated you. Perhaps the three redlinks could be dealt with? Either create stubs, or black them. Nice expansion work. -Fsotrain0913:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, I put some lines + a ref on phylogenetic relationships in; the Antarctic spp. actually the closest relatives (not the N Hemisphere species). So there they are and not redlinked too! Dysmorodrepanis02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the request for a review, and I like the article. Some quick thoughts, there are maybe a few to many inline citations in the description, and it needs some expansion. Article length isn't a problem for FAC, but there is some information here that can be expanded on. I am willing to help - I have a subscription to BNA and can access some journals - and I just looove seabirds. I'll do some reading tonight. BTW, leaving a note in the talk page of Wikiproject Birds would have drawn this to the attention of interested people (like myself) to come and help. Good luck! Sabine's Sunbirdtalk06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the notes in the "Pysical description" section. Is this better? Please let me know which areas or sections you feel need expansion. And thank you for your offer of assistance. I need it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline22:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The physical description section is much better. I'm still working out what needs to be expanded; as I do I'll either let you know or add it in myself. The conservation section is certainly one area for which more information exists, and I can probably get more information on specific prey species (both in the summer and wintering grounds)Sabine's Sunbirdtalk03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a taxonomy section? I had earlier included one, but it was taken out because it just duplicated the taxobox. Now, there is an inline cite in the lead. FAC voters generally dislike cites in the lead, so if there is anyway out of having a cite in the lead I'd like to do it. I think that including that, and perhaps restoring the rest of the taxonomy section would be best, but there might be alternatives. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not a section per se but change 'physical description' to 'description and taxonomy'. The physical description section already compares the species to its relatives, so simply expand using Dysmorodrepanis' papers and kill two birds with one stone. Then cite there. Maybe.
I changed the "Physical description" section to a "Physical description and taxonomy" section and followed your suggestion. I also fixed a few typos, punctuation errors and changed the inline references to all use cite web/cite book whenever possible. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been worked over over several months and has been put forward for GA status. It would be good to know what else could be done to make it any better than we have already done, possibly for an FA nom in the future. Dev92022:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following comments on Peer Review BIO:
I have sourced a Fair Use photo from Jake's website and have emailed the largest Jake fansite to ask if they will release one of theirs into the public domain.
I have expanded the lead section to include his career and sex symbolism; I will also add a section on his political activism and add that to the lead section as well.
The image has consequently been changed to a better one that iheartjake.com kindly released into the public domain.
After additional feedback, again at Peer Review BIO:
I have moved all citations to after the nearest full stop.
I have created a section entitled "Politics and Society" and moved all details of his activism there.
I have merged or expanded every one-sentence paragraph I could find, with the exception of the one in the lead section which I feel it perfectly succinct.
I have added references to support the new information.
Anything else to push towards GA, or if it's got there now, towards FA would be great, thanks.
WOW! I started this article on March 6, 2004 as a very sad little stub, and look at it now! It's very good. Well done on getting the free use image! I've just put your free use image back - I think you're gonna have a problem with that. "Fans" are always going to want to replace it with something overly flattering regardless of any copyright concerns. As long as there are photos of Jake with his shirt half-off, people are gonna want to swap your image for their own. Anyway onto the article.
Please change all of the occasions where he is referred to as "Jake". That gives it a fanzine tone and as per Wikipedia:Manual of style we should always use the surname, the only difference might be if discussing other Gyllenhaals such as Maggie in which case, obviously, you have to make it clear who you're talking about.
Be careful with slang or "common use" words or words that convey an opinion without attributing the opinion to anyone. Some examples (from the lead section) - "edgy" (this is mildly POV - who says they are edgy?), "indie" (independent), "stumping" (I have no idea what stumping is), and later in the article - "coveted" (as in Golden Lion award, well any award is coveted - except perhaps a Razzie - why not also says his BAFTA award was coveted too. It's an unnecessary word) There are possibly other examples.
Decide whether movie titles should be followed by their year, and then be consistent throughout the article. Personally, I prefer the year to be included as it gives a better sense of chronology. There are several film titles with their year of release and several without.
Movie titles should always be in italics
Provide sources for anything resembling a quote, an opinion or anything other than common knowledge. Example : an entire paragraph about Gyllenhaal's opinion of Ang Lee. Where did that come from? The article is well sourced on the whole, BTW.
Try to avoid fancruft. The bit about him sharing custody of some dogs with Kirsten Dunst? OK, it's true and it's sourced but it's also extreeeeeeeeemely irrelevant. This tells us nothing more than Gyllenhaal, like millions of people the world over, like dogs. He also probably likes wearing jeans, and that's just as unworthy of mention.
What has Maggie Gyllenhaal's being engaged to Peter Sarsgaard got to do with Jake Gyllenhaal?
Bio info box - the image caption "Award winning actor" is kind of stating the obvious. Should be more along the lines of "Gyllenhaal photographed in 2004" (or whatever) If he's not doing anything especially worth mentioning at least having a date would be good. Perhaps people will be looking at this in 5 years, for example. Notable films should be in chronological order with a line break between each one. Dates of release would be great too.
Biggest "problem" is the lead. It really tells very little about him. Merely listing movie titles is no good - suppose I've never seen or heard of them? I now know the titles of 4 Jake Gyllenhaal films - I'm none the wiser. Plus it's very POV to pick 4 from the list of however many he's done, unless those 4 are particularly iconic, without giving some supporting information about those films to demonstrate their significance. Diane Keaton is an example where this has been done well. You could easily do something similar here, build a nice little paragraph that contrasts his "edgy" Donnie Darko, his blockbuster Day After Tomorrow, his action Jarhead and his controversial Brokeback Mountain. That would be far more illuminating. Also... Gyllenhaal is primarily an actor, and his acting is the only thing that has made him famous, therefore I think it's inappropriate for his political endorsements to be part of the lead paragraph in the way that they are. It looks like Wikipedia is helping him publicise a preferred candidate or cause - I'm not comfortable with it in the lead, but further down in the article it's fine. A general summary of his work or causes would also be fine in the lead paragraph as part of a summary, but actually naming John Kerry is wrong.
As per my userpage, I'm on a break at the moment. I will return and get on with your recommendations in about four or five days time. Dev92018:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok:
1.Already done by someone else.
2. I personally can't do anything about this, because as far as I was aware, everything I wrote WAS NPOV. However, taking your examples, I have changed "stumping" to "campaigning", coveted has already gone, and I can't do anything about edgy because the synonyms I found are "artsy" which sounds worse, and "cutting edge" which sounds clinical, and isn't really accurate anyway. If anyone could find a better word, please, put it it, but I simply can't find a better, alternative word. Maybe I can think of a phrase or something...
I think it's mostly fine. You know, rather than worry too much about finding an alternative for "edgy", would you consider that you don't really need any adjective there? You could just say "known for often choosing indie films over blockbusters" because it's the contrast between indie and blockbuster that you're discussing rather than the edgy aspect of the roles. Rossrs13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. I've removed all the dates.
4. Already been done.
5. I have referenced the bit you mean.
6. Well, Jake's dogs are seen around with him, and he has given television interviews about both of them. I felt it emphasises not just his canine preference (although he bought Dunst a cat which he presumably had to live with that isn't mentioned in the article), but his social consciousness in getting a dog from a home. But if you mention one dog you ahve to mention the other. And most people have their animals mentioned in their articles. Would you prefer some quotes from Jake on his dogs?
On second thoughts, I think it's ok. It comes under the heading of personal life. I don't think it's particularly relevant, but that's only my opinion. The way it reads is fine. Rossrs13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. A quick bit of info on his family seems to be derigeur on Wikipedia. He has links with Peter as well, and additionally, Jake will almost certainly be the child's godfather.
I still think it doesn't work. I'm finding it the most difficult part of the article to review. I've been sitting here thinking about it and have discovered that while I've been doing so Stevenscollege has been working on it, (and has been making some very good improvements to the article lately). So maybe, we should wait and see..... I keep going back to Diane Keaton and thinking how well that one works. I think it's partly because Keaton flows really nicely. It's got a short but pertinent quote that kind of ties the first paragraph together. Then the second paragraph comments on Keaton's intention that validates her choices. I think with Jake it doesn't flow, and rather than a flow of related ideas it reads like several different ideas that are not connected. There's not really a clear idea of what Jake is "about". How to fix it, I don't know, but I'll give it more thought . Rossrs13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I've done some minor copy editing. Here are a few content points:
The statement above about too many colloquialisms is dead-on; unnecessary adjectives are subtle POV and can undermine the encyclopedic nature.
Why is it important the Jake wasn't in Mighty Dcks? So what?
Some of the paragraphs could use topic sentences that explain the content. Case-in-point: the paragraph about Jake working with family members Would be better if it started with something like "The members of the Gyllenhaal family have worked together on many Hollywood projects." Without a sentence to tie it together, it's just a list of roles that have involved relatives.
The references could use more specific information than just "Yahoo!" or "GLAAD"--add relevant authors and dates. Don't forget to put publication names, such as NY Daily News in italics.
I confess, I simply do not know when I am subtly undermining Jake's encyclopaedic nature. Nothing I personally can do about that, though I think the other editors keep a good eye on each other there. The reason it is important that Jake was not in Mighty Ducks is because his parents wouldn't let him; were it not for his parent's concern about his education, Jake would have been a child star, and would probably have become much better known before October Sky and Donnie Darko. It is noteworthy that for most of his school years, Jake's only roles were in films directed by his father. Where the references don't have authors, that's because ones aren't given; stevenscollege went through them all and added them. I have italicised publication names. Anything else? Jake's looking really good now... Dev92021:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing on to FA
Jake has now been awarded GA, and we've now added everything he's done in his career and all other relevant bits. As we are now pushing towards FA, can anyone give any more "higher" criticism, if you will, so we don't get shot down immediately? Dev92007:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear comments on how to improve this article because it seems to lack something that I could not find with my limited Wikipedia-related experience. Which ways could I use to drastically improve this article ?
Almost all good CVG articles have:
A basic description of gameplay (assume the reader knows little about video games, and has no inclination to play it; to that end, avoid lists of items/weapons/units/etc),
A summary of the plot (no more than its due, please; see Doom), and
Some combination of reviews, sales, and other "reactions" to the game (MUST be cited using good sources).
I'm looking to try to get this article up to featured quality, so I'm very interested in trying to identify any specific areas that it is weak on. --Cyde Weys03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few observations from a quick scan:
Very short intro section. Probably doesn't meet WP:INTRO
"Most of the crew and passengers survived. Of 36 passengers and 61 crew, 13 passengers and 22 crew died." Under death toll - probably not a neutral statement in the first sentence, and is really confusing and fragmented.
I took a quick look. There is not enough data about the final flight. For eg, the starting point and destination is not mentioned (was it Frankfurt to Lakehurst ?), or the height above the ground when it caught fire (from the description it looks like it was flying very low or was about to land), or the time of the day. Tintin (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there has been a lot of work on this and it is a good start. To reach FA status it still needs a lot of work though. I agree with all of the above comments. Reread the article and make sure each section and subsection is mentioned in the lead section of two or three paragraphs. There are a lot of sub sub heads - can you organize it so there are more headers and fewer subs? You might even want to break out some of the theories into their own article and summarize for brevity.
The units are a mishmash of metric and english - both should be present, probably with metric first (German airship). You might want to give the cost in more than pounds sterling and give some idea of the modern equivalent cost. There must be more references in the article itself, preferably inline citations. Refer to the proponents of theories by name / source wherever possible and cite their work.
As for the disaster, I agree more description of the last flight and the disaster itself are needed (before talking about the famous Oh the Humanity). Perhaps a table of passengers, crew and ground crew and numbers died, injured and survived would be clearer? Since the article is about the airship, not just the disaster that destroyed it, it would be nice to have more on the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin Co., how they decided to build the Hindenburg in the midst of a worldwide great depression, when they started, how long it took to build it, where it was built, etc. Also describe a typical flight across the Atlantic (times etc)? Zeppelins (military and some of Count Z's early ships) had crashed before, just not passenger zeppelins. Keep up the good work. Ruhrfisch02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has come a long way towards citing sources and getting cleaned up. I'd like to see it take that next step, and any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Cjosefy00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this thing is hard to reference - but has there been some article in the student newspaper about the club's member secrecy policy and "unrush" period? Durova05:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on this article quite a bit since I came across it [1]. I'm hoping the bring this page up at least to GA status, but I've never been an expert at prose. Keep in mind that information on the band is pretty limited, since their first album only came out less than a year ago. I appreciate the help! Teemu0820:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep you waiting so long. I read over the article and made some minor copyedits, but I think it's good enough to nominate for a GA. The only sentence that bothers me is: "For the next twelve weeks, the song was ranked higher than the week before, and two weeks later it reached its peak position at #8 on the Hot 100 chart." It makes sense, sort of, but it's horrible grammar, and I wasn't sure how to correct it. Anyway, good luck with the GA nomination! Eilicea14:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to get some imput on what may need to be done to get this article to featured status. From what I can see, the current content is fairly stable and well referenced, aside from a few points that may need further clarification. Any helpful suggestions would be welcome.--MONGO16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is pretty bad. It looks pretty and all, with nice pictures and decent grammar, and nice little sections. But it is not informative about what capitalism is. I remember seeing another version that was here before this one and it gave you a good sense of what capitalism was, all broken down into necessary components. The "Perspectives on characteristics of capitalism" section is too abstract to be useful. The "History of capitalism" section isn't any better. I suggest that the whole History section be moved to its own article and use all the extra space to go into more detail about what capitalism is. C-Liberal05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The results indicate that political traditions more committed to redistributive policies (both economic and social) and full-employment policies, such as the social democratic parties, were generally more successful in improving the health of populations, such as reducing infant mortality. From the abstract of Navarro V, Shi LY (2001). "The political context of social inequalities and health". SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE. 52: 481–491. contradicts the statements that health is closely related to globalization.Stone 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
David Coburn (2004). "Beyond the income inequality hypothesis: class,neo-liberalism, and health inequalities". Social Science & Medicine. 58: 41–56. R. S. Frey, and C. Field (2000). "THE DETERMINANTS OF INFANT MORTALITY IN THE LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: A CROSS-NATIONAL TEST OF FIVE THEORIES". Social Indicators Research. 52: 215–234. also give no indication for a clear dependency between the two parameters of Capitalism and Infant Mortality.--134.76.234.7511:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first attempt to expand a fantasy character article into something better, referenced and interesting to read. I must thank Tony1 and especially BrianSmithson for their examples and suggestions. I am hoping to get a peer review for every character in the Dragonlance saga, starting from this one, to achieve Good Article status in every of them, and leave them polished enough to match a Featured Article (even if it never becomes one). -- ReyBrujo15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. My main concern is that some of the sentences are rather long, and could use some judicious editing to break them into two or more shorter sentences. An example is the 2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph of the character background section. Also the statement that "first childhood love in the barbarian Hollow-sky is discovered" at first left me wondering if Hollow-sky was a person or some type of primitive ritual. Perhaps "love of"? Nowhere in that sentence does it actually say "he", so I'm unclear if Hollow-sky is a man, woman, or something else. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the feedback. In my attempt to keep a good flow, I merged too many sentences into just one. I decided to remove the statement about her childhood love (yes, Hollow-sky is a man), as it was not necessary (leftover from a previous version). I will do a full review of the article looking for other long sentences. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the article has come a long way, in terms of the History section, in that it is becoming a more detailed article. What parts should be improved? Is the lead section lacking a little? CloudNine15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lead is pretty good, the only thing I'm not crazy about (not that it's bad) is the "album to album" chronology. It makes sense from an organisational stand point, but sometimes I think it can invite too much detail on a particular album. For instance, there's more detail in the main article about Come on Pilgrim than on the album page, when it should be vice versa. But that's just my preference. It's good though. maxcap12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - once I feel the main article has reached a good standard (i.e. FA status), I'll start working on the other album articles. I chose an album chronology because I felt they suited it - the style varied from album to album and they didn't have grand live tours or anything like that. CloudNine12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Indonesian collaboration of the week article, starting on yesterday (August 21). However, I have seen many improvements compared to the one before some guys working actively on the article (but I can't find the history). Oh well, thanks for your review. Take care -- Imoeng10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I haven't got time today to have as thorough a look as I'd like. I've given some of the sections a quick copyedit, but it would benefit from a good run through. Some brief points:
It needs a lot more references.
Inline citations should come after the punctuation per WP:MOS
"The Wallaceabiogeographical destination defines the western part of Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan) have the same flora and fauna characteristics with the Asian continent." - couldn't make head nor tail of this sentence. I took a guess at copyediting it, but you should check it.
Komodo dragons are found on islands other than just Komodo
"Metropolitan tourism including shopping, sightseeing in big cities and enjoying modern amusement parks." - this is orphaned.
"which is usually favoured by the upper classes, including foreigners" - are all foreigners included in "the upper classes" or are only upper-class foreigners covered by this statement?
" However, an application is compulsory to both VOA and visa-free countries" - can't work out what that means.
I completely revamped this article. Major, major changes have been made. A previous revision of the article has been described as being more like "a glowing review of the movie, not an encyclopedia article about it." I have fixed this. I think the current revision is very well-done, and I'd like to know what you folks think of what I've done with the article. (Ibaranoff2405:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
A fairly good article, but the following changes should be implemented:
In-line citations go after the punctuation (here they come exclusively before).
Expand the lead and the Response subsection. Better yet, make Response into a new section by itself.
There are some red links. You might want to create some stubs for these guys (though not all) to make the article look more visually appealing.
The Plot section does not have any in-line citations, although I'm debating if this is a problem. The information included there does not seem to be controversial or something that might need to be sourced, with the possible exception of some quotes I found. I'll let you make the call on this one.
Hello. If I could get any kind of feedback regarding the overall format of the article, as well as any general input regarding the content of the article. I have tried to assert the notability of the school as well as I can. Any other suggestions? Also, I'd like to have internal citations, but I'm not familiar with the code that I need to put in to have the citations work properly. Any feedback that i can get at all would be appreciated. Thanks. will38179605:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok right now the article is very short. Depending on how far you want to go with it, it will need more sections (like History and so on). There are different formats on citing, but the most popular one recently goes something like this:
The text under the "Enter bibliographical information" tag will now appear in the Notes section. Also, sometimes you will use the same page in a book or the same page in a website to cite more than one statement. When that happens, do this:
<ref name="blabla" />
Use the first citation name that you gave that book or site (in this case "blabla") and write it like I did above. Hope this helps. Good luck!UberCryxic15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was drastically revamped by a Collaboration of the Week by Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music a few months back; it was passed as a Good Article about a week later. I'm hoping to take this article to FAC in the next week or so after I add a few more things. I would mainly appreciate a copyedit, and any other concerns you might have. I'm hoping this article can eventually serve as a model for future musical group FAs. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M3tal H3ad
Following years of underground success, R.E.M. entered the mainstream - possibly link Underground music and Mainstream (terminology), not everyone knows what these terms mean.
A question as such, you introduce the band with the singular "is" then later refer to them as a plural "their", "they" and "were", is this ok as it switches between the two often?
For the musicians first mention in the body it would be suitable to tell the reader what instruments they each play (i had to scroll to the lead to find out)
R.E.M. had recorded its debut EP - link EP at its first mention, not everyone knows what the term is
A positive review of the EP by NME - you need to attribute the review and quotes to the person who said them, that one person does not represent the entire magazine
The writer is credited in the citation. If this were the EP's aricle I'd be more inclined to mention the author by name in the prose, but to mention him in the prose of this article would be awkward and unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and reached number 78 in 1983 - where? on the Billboard Hot 100 (America) i assume?
I'm not exactly the best peer reviewer and no doubt only a handful of these comments will be helpful, but the article is in pretty good shape and i could only spot these minor things out, good job. If only the Metal project had something as half decent as the Alternative project does with activity and helpful reviewers...i can keep dreaming. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"While rehearsing for the ceremony, the band recorded a cover of John Lennon's "#9 Dream" for "Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur," a tribute album benefiting Amnesty International, as well as releasing the song as a single for the album and the campaign, "#9 Dream" was Berry's first studio recording with the band since his departure almost a decade earlier." - This really long sentence needs to be cut into two. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stipe had suggested the new album would be "primitive and howling," and the band had released a stark political protest song called "Final Straw" free over the Internet during the invasion of Iraq, leading fans to expect a return to roots." - Try to avoid redundant words like "new". The album is currently three years old, and the statement will be old when R.E.M. release a new album. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of Time's lead single "Losing My Religion" became the group's most successful track release when it reached number four on the Billboard charts." - "Most successful" is an opinion. "Highest charting Billboard single" or something similar would be more appropriate to say. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stipe had suggested the new album would be "primitive and howling," and the band had released a stark political protest song called "Final Straw" free over the Internet during the invasion of Iraq, leading fans to expect a return to roots." - The fact that the song is "stark" is one's own personal interpretation, and is therefore original research. Also, the mention of fans expectations is mere speculation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article achieved GA status a few weeks ago, and now I want to see what other additions, deletions, or otherwise modifications are needed to help it achieve FA status. Any advice is appreciated and thanks for any time and efforts. --physicq21003:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty good article, although it will have to overcome some major obstacles before reaching FA. Mostly these concern structure; I'm not really sure why the sections Aircraft Noise Abatement and Aircraft Incidents exist. The latter should somehow be merged into the History section and the former can be included in some new section, like Technology in the airport or something. Beyond that, the Aircraft Noise Abatement section has lists; these either have to go or be incorporated into the text through summary style. The Airlines and Terminals section could also profit from some more summary style. There are way too many lists in there; if you take it to FAC right now, this will be the #1 issue most people will raise. The Boarding Areas and the Terminals subsections barely have any prose; eliminate the lists and summarize the material. For example, instead of mentioning every boarding area and which operator it covers, create a daughter article for that stuff and in this article only talk about some of the major boarding areas (the ones that receive the most traffic and so on).
Also, you'll want some more footnotes. Right now you have 17, but for an article this size a few more will be needed. This shouldn't be a problem because I notice that in References you have listed some works that you did not cite under Notes (you can't do that btw; if you put something up under References, people will assume you cited something out of it). My final piece of advice: look for another article about airports that is either GA or FA. This could provide some inspiration and guidance. Good luck!UberCryxic04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. So far, the Aircraft Noise Abatement section has been condensed, and the Aircraft Incidents section has been moved to the end to match other airport articles that have it (LAX, JFK, etc.). I'm working on adding more prose to the terminals sections; however, due to WP:AIRPORTS guidelines, I cannot turn the lists into prose. I'm also working on the adding of more sources, and have eliminated the "further reading" section as it is now pointless. Again, thanks for your comments! --physicq21003:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the International Terminal contains limited information about the architecture of the terminal - who the architect was etc. suggest this is expanded and Terminals 1,2 and 3 should also include similar information. When were they built - who was the architect - any notable design features/constraints - structural system - engineers name maybe - why did some of them go out of service - did they fit into a masterplanned design of airport expansion - what masterplans have been produced? etc.etc. PS. Love the SFIA at night picture.--Mcginnly | Natter11:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some advice on how to make this a featured article, I've already started editing it and making it look better - advice is appreciated. Any helpful advice is useful! Also, if anyone knows of a relevant WikiProject to discuss this on, let me know! --TheM62Manchester21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the auto peer review to the Talk:Coconut page. The article should be longer, currently it is 2475 words, with 112 wikilinks and 9 images.
In the first para, it infers that the edible part, when dried, is called copra. The fibrous husk becomes copra. I'd hate to eat it. [suma rongi] Suma rongi (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I'm looking for comments on ways in which this page could be improved, made more useful, re-formatted, etc with the goal of getting it into good article/featured article shape. On another note, any appropriate images would be greatly appreciated. MastCell21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good overall. A few ideas:
In the lead: "Much progress has been made" is a little weaselly, and the statement about fatality needs a citation (even if that is implicit in the category of "acute leukemia", general readers won't know that). Also, "bone marrow and elsewhere" is awkward.
The lead mentions research on causes of AML, but there's not much mention of current research in the article text itself. I believe in particular that AML and ALL are often used as test cases in genomics and microarray technologies designed to distinguish stereotypical cancer genotypes and predict prognoses.
What is meant by the description of the cells as "immature"?
In the History section: "when Velpeau described a 63-year-old florist..." - Velpeau is neither introduced nor wikilinked.
Causes section should be prose (it practically already is; such long explanations kind of defeat the purpose of a bulleted list).
It's not clear to me whether organic solvents have been implicated in causing AML specifically, or leukemia in general.
The lead mentions the incidence-age correlation but the text contains no data on incidence more generally. A section on these subjects (any correlation with gender or ethnic groups? different rates in different countries? etc.) would be useful.
It seems useful to give a brief explanation of why displacing normal bone marrow cells is bad. Just a brief expansion in the pathophysiology section to be more clear.
Consider moving symptoms (and possibly diagnosis) above the classification scheme. Most people who read the article are probably looking for clinical information, not differences in international classification methodologies.
Are there any typical or canonical genetic variations in the cancerous cells? The mention of chromosomal translocation tests suggests maybe, but I don't know.
Is the cure rate 20-30% overall, or with treatments not including bone marrow transplantation? The prognosis section implies the former and the end of the treatment section sounds like it could be the latter.
The sentence in the introduction that states that the disease is curable, but not usually by current therapy seems self-contradictory.
The article states that the mutations in pregression from a pre-malignant cell to a malignant cell only seen in transcription factors. From a brief skim of Pubmed I suspect there is also involvement of signalling proteins or apoptotic regulators. Ref1Ref2
Thanks for the suggestions; I've done my best to incorporate them, although some are beyond what I can address knowledgably and so would need help from other expert editors. Input is much appreciated. MastCell04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on San Francisco was listed as a Good Article, and then nominated for Featured Article Status. It failed the FA nomination, so clearly it is in need of more work. Please take a look at the article and make suggestions for improvement.
Personally, I think there is too much trivia and minutiae. The FA-review mentioned the County Jails section (I'd remove this) and the Education section. And there seem to be too many lists, which makes the flow poor. I (and other editors who have worked on the article) would appreciate specific comments on areas that should be prioritized for more work. Please suggest where citations are needed, which sections might be removed or moved to their own articles, and which areas have weak writing. And certainly, any other areas where you can make suggestions are also welcome.
Here are some of the comments the FA reviewers made:
Have at least 3 tags on sections that need to be split
large white spaces created by picture location
two reference styles
one-sentence sections (about jails)
trivia and unreferenced notables
a large number of external jumps
need for inline citations (example, The Port of San Francisco was once the largest and busiest seaport on the west coast, but that title is now held by the joint ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach)
In "History", I counted seven running paragraphs constructed of just ten sentences.
More stubs further down, especially in "Media". Isn't "southeast" one word? Please polish it. Tony 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't like the "County jails" and "education" sections
Prose improvement
And here are a few points I've gathered from looking at other peer review comments:
To start it off, take out the "county jails" section and perhaps integrate it into the "crime" section or leave it out altogether. No other city article (except perhaps Seattle, and only one sentence) even mentions jails and/or prisons. --physicq21021:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another piece of advice: Combine the coffee houses section with the section mentioning the San Francisco counterculture movement. I don't have time to do this sort-of tedious work; I'm working on the San Francisco International Airport article (which, coincidentially, is also undergoing peer review to prep it for FA status). --physicq21004:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a better picture of one of the most beautiful cities in the world available for the opening shot.
The Table of Contents is a bit overwhelming, but can be solved by losing the unencyclopedic trivia (since your trivia is completely unreferenced anyway, it needs to go). One way to save that content, but remove it from an article you want to feature, may be to spin it into a daughter article, using Summary Style. Jails can be combined with crime; coffee houses, and nightlife don't warrant their own sections. (Why would you cover coffee houses, and yet leave out Union Street, the fabulous restaurants, etc? The topics you have chosed to cover are sporadic. A picture of the Palace of Fine Arts, but no discussion of the history? Almost nothing about the Presidio?) Find ways to make a better organized article, which will be reflected in a cleaner TOC. Colleges and Universities can also have their own article, using Summary Style, which will help clean up this article, which is too listy and too long. (Why is SF claiming Stanford and Berkeley? You don't need to stretch the facts to make SF seem better than it already is.) Just as you have a separate article for airports, you can have a separate article for schools.
This article is confused: it's supposed to be about SF, but you're including South Bay and East Bay in terms of universities and sports. The Oakland Raiders are not part of San Francisco. Get non-SF out of the article, and use the space to tell us more about San Francisco highlights and sports, the new Giants stadium, PacBell, for example. You're covering way too much stuff outside of SF, but don't cover well the SF highlights and landmarks. Why are you telling me about Oakland airport and NASA in Mountain View in an SF article? The article is not The SF Bay Area. There is much more than can be said about SF, once you get the non-SF content out. Or, move all of that to a separate section about the Greater Bay Area. (There's already an article on San Francisco Bay Area; no need to duplicate content: there's enough you can say about SF city and county.)
The poor arrangement of pictures needs to be dealt with. Some can be moved to the left (rather than right justified). Some can be moved up or down a paragraph. They are all shoved together, creating large white chunks without text. Arrange them so that you don't have those big chunks of white space, which is unsightly and not "our best work". I moved two pictures to give you a sample: look at the page before and after those moves.
You need to do a *lot* of work on referencing. First, you need to do more inline citing. The article is under-referenced (particularly for FA standards). Second, you mix ref styles: convert all refs to m:Cite/Cite.php format. Third, you aren't punctuating the footnotes correctly (see WP:FN). The ref goes after punctuation.
Refer to WP:GTL: your See also is in the wrong place.
Now, once you clear all that "stuff" out, you can focus on the items you've ignored.
Your prose needs polishing: Rail extensions there include BART and Caltrain via BART at nearby Millbrae, California. Where - to the airport? Network to find someone who can help you clean up the prose, after you've rewritten the article.
History needs to be thoroughly referenced. Why is homelessness in history?
Here's a random item: things like this need attention. In the mid 1830s, the first city street plan was laid out by the Mission Alcalde, Francisco de Haro, I know an alcalde is a mayor, but do most people know that? You might need to Wikilink more, or define terms.
The area became Mexican upon Mexico's independence from Spain and fell into isolation. Fell into isolation? From whom/what/where/when?
One paragraph on the earthquake? One sentence on the two great bridges?
The city is also where Bank of America was founded. That's it for A.P. Giannini?
See also: Companies Headquartered in San Francisco, California Can you put that at the top of the section, instead of in the middle?
The media section is full of external jumps, which should be eliminated.
A list of schools is of little use: what are the issues with the schools in SF?
It might help to compare with FA Boston, Massachusetts, although it isn't well enough referenced (standards for inline citations have improved since it passed FA).
No mention of Harvey Milk?
Crime is completely unreferenced.
Private school list is incomplete, so spin them to a daughter article.
I removed external jumps from one sentence in Media, to show you an example of the work that needs to be done there. Sandy15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second look
Far better organization and citing.
In the media section, why is this a red link:
See also: List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area
This needs inline citations:
The San Francisco Chronicle, a broadsheet for which Herb Caen famously published his daily musings, is northern California's most widely circulated newspaper. The San Francisco Examiner, once the cornerstone of William Randolph Hearst's media empire, has declined over the years and been reduced to a tabloid.
Schools: no mention at all of private schools other than Catholic. Isn't there a very fine all boys' school in SF?
Culture and contemporary life is in need of references, throughout. Way too much emphasis on counterculture and alternate lifestyles, not enough about the thriving business community. Paints SF as unidimensional.
Museums, no link to Palace of Fine Arts or mention of World Fair origins?
Transportation, screaming for inline citations throughout, for example:
San Francisco has the most extensive public transit system on the U.S. West Coast and one of the most diverse in the country. It also has one of the highest riderships; 35% of the city's population use public transit as part of their daily commute.
Airports: still mentioning airports that are not SF airports, rather Bay Area. Why not delete references to non-SF airports, and instead use the space to discuss the HORRIFIC issues of construction at SFO, and how the airport has been utterly destroyed by poor planning?
Although the article is much improved, there are still too many statements throughout that need inline citations, if the article is to pass FAC. For example, The Mission District, site of the Mission Dolores, is the oldest neighborhood in the city.
I found several typos within references (bot checks don't pick those up). You should put the entire article into a spell checker for review.
The newspaper refs (at least, maybe others) aren't done correctly: I fixed one as example, to include the author and date of publication. If a link goes dead, a reader needs the information to find the newspaper article in a library.
Raine, George. Tourism dollars add up: San Francisco seeing more visitors, more cash -- it's our No. 1 industry. San Francisco Chronicle (May 13, 2006). Accessed August 23, 2006.
I found several instances of no spaces between words or after punctuation (those corrections don't show on diffs). It seems like a thorough copy edit is still needed.
There are still missing citations: example "San Francisco is the traditional focal point of the San Francisco Bay Area and forms part of the greater San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area (CSA) whose population is over 7 million - the fifth largest CSA in the United States" and "San Francisco is a minority-majority city as non-Hispanic Whites make up 43% of the population. Asian-Americans, principally Chinese, comprise 31% of the population, giving the city the highest such concentration of any city in the continental United States. Hispanics of any race make up 14% of the population. At less than 8% of the population, San Francisco has fewer African-Americans than most other large American cities." The article needs to be *thoroughly* cited.
This statement is POV, and says nothing of the San Francisco I know, which is neither of these: San Francisco is at once, bohemian enclave and home to the world's wealthy. It is also uncited.
There are numerous instances of prose that needs polishing, example: "Though hilly, San Francisco is a relatively small and compact city with mixed-use character and residents and visitors create a rich street environment walking to shops and meals."
The article still needs a lot of work. I haven't even checked the prose. (I'm going to have limited computer access for the next two weeks, and won't be able to check again.) Sandy02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The embedded refs section was moved to an external editor and checked for correct spelling.
All refs with authors and publication dates have been updated per the above example.
The article source was exported to an external editor and spell-checked, finding a number of spacing problems including too many & not enough
"San Francisco is the traditional focal point of the San Francisco Bay Area and forms part of the greater San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area (CSA) whose population is over 7 million - the fifth largest CSA in the United States" and "San Francisco is a minority-majority city as non-Hispanic Whites make up 43% of the population. Asian-Americans, principally Chinese, comprise 31% of the population, giving the city the highest such concentration of any city in the continental United States. Hispanics of any race make up 14% of the population. At less than 8% of the population, San Francisco has fewer African-Americans than most other large American cities."
These statements along with many many others have been referenced. There is now over 17K of reference material in the article.
This statement is POV, and says nothing of the San Francisco I know, which is neither of these: San Francisco is at once, bohemian enclave and home to the world's wealthy. It is also uncited.
The statement has been removed & the entire section was rewritten.
There are numerous instances of prose that needs polishing, example: "Though hilly, San Francisco is a relatively small and compact city with mixed-use character and residents and visitors create a rich street environment walking to shops and meals."
Comments below were made on August 29, 2006 and transferred to this page on August 30.
Wow, I guess there's been a lot of work! Overall, the quality of the article is vastly better than the last time I read it. Great work! I went through and fixed a few minor spelling and punctuation errors myself but there are a few other points I wanted to mention:
A few of the sections towards the bottom (colleges and universities, culture and contemporary life) read like they still use a bit of a copyedit.
I would add a little more information regarding the 1906 earthquake to the history section. The short paragraph that currently exists seems to start rather suddenly and it seems like there should be a little bit more about one of the defining events in San Francisco's history.
I would definitely support another featured article nomination if a few of the above things can be addressed. The only other thing that I can think of that might cause some opposition in another nomination would be the length of the article. Personally, I have no problem with this. I would much rather read a long article that is very comprehensive than one that leaves out relevent information but I've gotten the feeling that many other users don't feel the same way when it comes to featured articles.
Anyways, I should have left for work about 10 minutes ago, great job on the article and let me know what you think about those suggestions. --Nebular11002:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth Look
This may be perhaps my last bit of advice before this article goes for FA (moved here from the article talkpage):
In my opinion, the neighborhood section still needs a bit of chopping. Try moving a bit of information over to the main neighborhoods article, as not every neighborhood needs to be mentioned on the main page. Change this, and I will support FA without any qualms. Good job to everyone who contributed during this marathon overhaul, with most thanks given to Paul.h and DaveOinSF! --physicq21000:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut 20% out of the neighborhoods section. See if you don't think it reads better now. Thank you for the supportive comments. --Paul01:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking pretty good, but still needs some work, so I'll try to point out what I see to help make this one sail smoothly through FAC if possible.
Needs a bit more info on income distibution and avg income. What information that is there is in the Culture section which seems really out of place. Why not cover it in the economics or demographics section where it fits more logically?
Crime needs to be covered to be comprehensive. Comparisons to national averages for the major categories and to cities of similar size are needed. Doesn't need it's own section, but it does need a full paragraph perhaps in the demographics section.
The neighborhoods section still has too much detail and instead needs more overview. The detail should be moved to the sub article and replaced with summary, overview information. We don't need a listing of all neighborhoods, but a bit of info on the most important onces and the rest as an overview of the reasons for the differences in different areas.
The climate section could use more information on number of sunny vs cloudy days, and number of foggy days. The extremely unusual monthly temperature distribution could use a source noting how unsual that is for basically anywhere else in the US, and for all I know any other temperate climates. I'm not sure but the microclimates are probably important enought to warrant a little more space. My understanding is the Giants moved from Candlestick partly for the better weather a few miles away. You don't need to mention that trivia here, it's just evidence for such pronounced microclimates being unusual.
Response Thank you to Taxman for these comments, they have been addressed as follows:
Data for total and per capita personal income, as well as for % of families below the poverty line have been added to the Demographics section. Crime data was also added along with comparisons to U.S. averages and other large cities.
The neighborhood section was cut by close to 50%
The climate section was expanded with more data on the climate type, sunny & cloudy days, and microclimates. I found data for fog, but it is gathered at the airport and is not representitive of what happens in the western part of San Francisco proper, so I didn't include it. Climate data wouldn't reflect the fog anyway, as it is mostly a morning phenomenon, burning off by noon or a bit later.
All of the comments from reviewers on this page have been a tremendous help, as anyone can see by comparing different versions of the article! Thank you to all for taking the time to read and make positive suggestions.--Paul03:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently improved this article. I would like to know if there are weak points, if it is unbalanced, if the citations are numerous enough, if the references used are authoritative.
Furthermore, I looked for information about Basiliscus relationship to Aspar, but found very sketchy hints suggesting an involvment of Basiliscus in Aspar death, buth nothing more.
It looks decent, but could use a little work. Here's some comments:
A short introduction can be an issue in the FAC process. I suggest making it at least 2-3 paragraphs.
The organization of the contents seems a little odd with a single big section called "Life". I suggest getting rid of that and moving the other sections up one level. So the main sections would then be "Origins", "Early career", ...
Pardon me for saying so, but much of the page could use a careful editing. The writing is somewhat awkward in places. An example would be the sentence, "The position of Basiliscus rose in Leo consideration, probably also because of Verina support." Paragraphs such as: "Probably of Balkanic origin, Basiliscus was brother of Aelia Verina, wife of Leo I, had a wife, Zenonis, and a son, Marcus," can be confusing due to ambiguity.
The External links section should be at the end of the article, per the MoS.
I expanded the introduction, briefly sketching B.'s life and importance.
I removed the "Life" heading
As regards the "careful editing", it is needed both because some of my sources are "old", and because English is not my first language. I partially reworded the sentences, but I would leave further "cleaning" to someone else.
I also reordered the sections accordinf to the Manual of Style.
Nice job, man. But if you ever go for FA or even GAC you'll have to fix a lot of things. Some basic remarks:
The lead is still inadequate. You must add one or two sentences. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole text. See WP:LEAD.
Nice photos and captions. But you'll find out that there are some infoboxes for military persons you might like to use. After this peer-review you can also ask from a peer-review by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. There are some excellent reviewers there, doing an excellent job.
Don't we have any clue about when Basiliscus was born? I saw that this topic is obscure in the article.
When did the "Disastrous expedition against the Vandals" happen? I saw no chronology. Sometimes I feel like losing the chronological order in the article!
You have placed the sub-section "Disastrous expedition against the Vandals" under "Early Years". Are you sure about that? Shouldn't be a seperate section? And If we assume not, why you have the first two paragraphs of the section "Early Years" without a title. As it is now, you have a huge sub-section ("Disastrous expedition against the Vandals") and two orphan paragraphs before that. Personally, I do not like this structure.
If you ever nominate the article for GA or FA, you'll find that many users donot like one-sentence paragraphs. You have some of them. I think they need fixing.
Citations! Citations! Citations! The trend is now in Wikipedia to citate as much as we can. Some example of statements that need reference: "Probably of Balkan origin (who says that?)", "It has been argued that Basiliscus was uncle to the chieftain of the Heruli, Odoacer by whom?)", "The invasion of the kingdom of the Vandals was one of the greatest military undertakings recorded in the annals of history, a combined amphibious operation with over ten thousand ships and one hundred thousand soldiers (Who gives these numbers?)", "The number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, as well as the expenses of the expedition, have been differently calculated by historians. Both were enormous; the account of Nicephorus Gregoras, who speaks of one hundred thousand ships, can be rejected as either an error of the copyists or a gross exaggeration. According to the more reliable opinion of Cedrenus, the fleet that attacked Carthage consisted of eleven hundred and thirteen ships, having each one hundred men on board (the historians you mention say that in which of their works? Be more specific!)", "Byzantine emperors were at the same time heads of the State and of the Church. Therefore, they had the power of issuing edicts regarding the Christian faith. At the same time, religious matters were very important for the Byzantine people, and those suspected of eresy, or simply supporters of the "wrong" interpretation of articles of faith, had not easy lives (Says who?)"
You have a full paragraph of Bury. Is this paragraph so important? Can't you just rephrase what he says and incorporate that in your prose? And fix the citation (Bury, p. 392). Put it in the end along with the other references and notes.
Be more clear about what is the "Chalcedonian faith". I had to go two links further to go to the COuncil of Chalcedon and then I kept reading your article, and I found that you indeed clarify the whole matter, but in tha next paragraph. I think you should rewrite both paragraphs, so that the reader avoids the needless confuse.
First of all, thank you for the useful review. I did change the article to address your points, in the following way:
I tried to expande the leading section, summarizing B. life and why he is important;
I added an infobox used for military figures, but I am not sure it fits with B., since he is mostly noteworthy as emperor, rather than as commander;
I find no reference to his date of birth;
The article does not cite frequently years, because only two events are noteworthy in B.'s life, the operation in Africa (468) and his rise-rule-fall (475-476). So the section about Africa is set in 468 and his rise-rule-fall are from january 475 to august 476. Note that also the sources are quite vague, with such a short rule, always reporting statements as "at the beginning of his reign", rather than the month/year;
I voluntarly adopted the style "a paragraph and then the subsection(s)" for each section. However it looks like you do not like it, so I removed the stray paragraphs;
I did not think it was necessary to add a citation for each paragraph, when I carefully listed my references in the relative section. I added the citations as you requested, but I find they obstacle the flow of the reading. Let me know what you think;
I removed the citation by Bury;
I wanted to avoid a lengthy discussion about the Monophysite/Chalcedonian positions, as the exact matter of the contemption is not important in the story as the fact that there was a contemption. However, I reworded that part, let me know what you think.
Manuel I is quite a larger figure than Basiliscus, I do not think there exists such a quantity of material on the latter. However, I shall take a look to Manuel article.
I think the article looks much much better. First of all, let me tell you that my suggestions are not by default right! They are just based on my short experience with GA and FAC. Thereby, in certain points I may be wrong. When I say that one-phrase sentences are not preferred my some Wikipedia users, this is not necessarily my opinion, but If you attempt to qualify your article as FA or GA, you may face such criticisms. Because I did face! Now, some additional remarks:
The structure seems neat to me now. As far as I am concerned it is OK. I'm not against one paragraph before the sub-sections of a section. But two long introductory paragraphs and just one too long sub-section seemed to me a bit peculiar. Again, another user may have a different view!
References: To have an idea about what is the trend in Wikipedia about refs, check User:Robth/Citation spot checks. I quote: "I will then check these references to see if the cited source contains text supporting the claim to which the citation applies ... I will be opposing FACs which lack sufficient inline citations, lack sufficient detail in their citations (page numbers are key), or which I find serious problems with while doing the spot check." I quote again: "page numbers are key". In the "new" version you do not have page numbers in the citations!
Try to have the citations at the end of the sentences, so as not to obstruct the flow of the reading. You're right about that. But the balance between good flow and adequate citations is always tricky. You may be right that "it was not necessary to add a citation for each paragraph", but as you see, you may be criticised that you "lack sufficient inline citations".
The infobox:military person or the Infobox:Biography was just a suggestion. If you donot like it, OK! But if you get criticised for not having one, have a good reasonig to respond these critics.
In the captions of the mints, mention that these are byzantine coin depicting him or her. For instance, "Zeno on a coin celebrating his victories." It is very nice that your captions are explanative. Just make sure that you donot repeat what you've already analysed in the prose. I think, in most cases, you do not repeat, but just make sure!
The lead: You may have expanded it too much, but this is not a big deal. If you get criticised for the length, you merge or erase one or two sentences and it is OK.
Even more sources would be well-comed. I checked the word "Basiliscus" in Google Book Search and I think there is a variety of books about him.
In any case, the article is getting better and better. And if you follow my advice and have it peer-reviewed in the two Wikipedia-projects I mentioned, it will get even better.--Yannismarou09:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not good, and it is about one of my favorite TV characters. What does this article need to get to FA status? Thanks much!! Judgesurreal77703:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article to find independent review and evaluation. I've reworked it twice, providing more and more references each time. However, this article is subject to various debates due to the sensitivity of the issues. Please help by offering suggestions... Thanks!! - Mtmelendez21:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good. Some points:
The lead should be expanded somewhat per WP:LEAD -- briefly summarize the investigations, the aftermath, and the legacy.
Toward the end of "The second investigations": "New evidence would turn up against the police officers responsible for the killings,..." Like what?
"Undercover agent acquitted, murdered" reads like a newspaper headline, but maybe that's fine.
Hi. This is a new article, created within the last week or so almost wholly by myself, and I'd like to have some outside opinion on its merits, or lack of, both so that the article itself can be made as good as possible (and can maybe be brought up to FA status), and so that I can take this opportunity to learn from my mistakes and pass the experience on to all of my future edits and writing. Thanks in advance, all comments are greatly appreciated! --Clngre20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow great job! I do not have time now to read the article, but a few things stand out just glacing at it. First you relie a lot on Solzhenitsyn. And while it is 100% OK to use him as a source it would be nice if you could find a greater variety of sources. Also I notice that you used a few blockquotes. That is also fine, but consider some of the points made in Wikipedia:Quotations#When to use quotations; perhaps prose would be better. I am sorry if this is a bit rude, but I am just surprise that you can write some much in so little time, but does any of it have any copyright problems? Again, great job.Jon51307:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, jon! Thanks for your comments, I take them seriously. Let me go through them now:
I too am uncomfortable with the fact that I end up relying so much on Solzhenitsyn, but unfortunately my hands are kind of tied on that. The uprising does not have much written about it in english and Solzhenitsyn's account is one of the only major things on it. Anecdotally, from my search of Google print I've found tens of books where the uprising is mentioned, but they almost all use Solzhenitsyn as their source as well. I found a few websites that have some information on the uprising, too, but a lot of it is really suspect and some of it impossible (claims about something happening years before it even could have). But I have also found a number of news articles or book reviews that are fairly authoritative and that I've tried to incorporate. In any case, I was just now thinking of going to the talk page of the user that originally created the page based on a Ukranian-lanaguage book(s) and asking him to double check the article and correct whatever needs to be corrected.
Yes, the blockquotes are unusual and I'm not so sure about them. I do believe in using some of those quotes to help illustrate the point that is being made, but I don't really know wikipedia's policy on this and if the blockquotes that are there now are so apt. I initially just started to use them to help kind of "break-up" the big blocks of text because there are so few images from gulags, and absolutely none from Kengir that I'm aware of. Should I use it more sparingly or not at all? I'd glady accomodate either.
haha, no it's all written by myself (except the sourced quotations, of course). Thats a vaguely flattering question, actually. I'm just in my summer off before school and I have a lot of time and energy. Also I felt bad that there was no article on it on wikipedia and felt like an obligation to make something.--Clngre12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a comment about images - the image there is fair use and I'm pretty sure that it would be an obstacle for being a FA. It's okay right now but I think there would be an objection were you to apply (happened to me before on an article I submitted so I just removed an image). It might be worth your while to go digging through the Commons to see what you can find; even though a lot of images aren't strictly necessary it's good to have at least two, one for the top of the article itself and a different one that goes on the front of the main page the day it gets featured. Mithridates14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the comment. Yes, I was thinking about adding some other images, although I realize they would have to be of other gulags or prisoners. I'll get on that immediately. --Clngre15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, check it out now if you please. The middle section is still spare, so I'll look for some more images for it tongiht. --Clngre16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks good. That's enough images at present to be a FA though there's nothing wrong with a few more of course. The only other thing that stands out right now are a few red links (other uprisings in the see other section) but since you write so prolifically I assume you're going to write those too before nominating the article. Mithridates17:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already marked as a Wikipedia:Good Article. We need to improve it in checking that all the sources are there, that the layout of the page is simple and efficient, the images relevant, and the wording precise and elegant. Such a great article should become an A-Class or an Featured Article --San Marcos19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a marvelous article, but it still needs a good deal of improvement before it can become a FA.
There are a number of sections containing lists. (i.e. Objectives, Subjects of Interest, Structure) These sections should be in prose, additionally, you may consider explaining some of the items.
The article is littered with short and one-sentence paragraphs, these should be merged or added to.
The "See Also" section should be merged into the article unless the items are already linked.
Previous Peer Review only received a single review from an automated bot. I'm interested in improving the article to Featured Article status and would appreciate suggestion on how to do that. TonyJoe17:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the auto peer review again and left the results on the talk page. I think increaing the lead needs to happen. I also did some minor cleanup on the article. You could also reduce the number of redundnat wikilinks. The paragraph that begins "Many New Englanders, including those of Portsmouth..." needs to either tell more about why what webster did was important or be removed. I personally dont like "...his proverbial national star... ". The "Upon his arrival," sentance needs to be broken up and cleaned up. "fall from his horse and a crushing blow to the head." He fell from his horse and then someone hit him? Overall you may want to look for long sentances and chop them up. Stats: 6009 words,188 links,6images, 15 categories. I would say after some work getting the prose a little better and completeing the auto-suggestions its ready for FA-Ravedave(help name my baby)04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks a lot for your response. I've always known that the sentences could use some chopping but I never really had the will to do it... I went through the article and I think I shortened some of the most obvious ones, as well as some of your other suggestions. I actually think I did most of what you recommended except increasing the lead; I'll do that sometime soon. I think the time line would be cool and I've always liked the Pericles article... it's actually where I got the idea for putting snippets of oratory and letters in the floating blue boxes. :p Thanks again for your help. TonyJoe09:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is one of two former featured video game articles, and was removed partly on the reason it had never even been peer reviewed. Well here it is! This article needs lots of references, I know, but in terms of content, it is way too small. What needs to be expanded upon to become featured again? Thanks! Judgesurreal77718:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the lead needs expanding. Thanks Stuart, I'll place that on the To-do list and ensure it gets done before the article goes to FAC. --kingboyk14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was reviewed, and is now rated "good article". If I had a picture of Boyle Roche, I would submit it for FA. ubiquity20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for some time, and I think it is now ready for the peer review process. Please feel free to make any suggestions that could possibly help make this a Featured Article.Hal Raglan02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a very thorough well-structured article. Good work, as usual. The one thing you might want to do is work on either removing the redlinks or creating articles for them. --Myles Long23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a movie I've been meaning to see. I found the article very informative, and congratulations on the FA status! Шизомби03:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been classified as a good article already. It seems comprehensive, and it would be appreciated if you commented on how to work it up to a featured article. --Gray Porpoise22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change the Wikipedia:Embedded Citations, and the references to the proper [[Wikipedia:Citation templates|citation template]. Most of them are missing information about the author and some do not have proper format. There are several quotes of a wiki which have to be moved to a {{cite web}} linking to the revision referred to. The exteral links, notes, and references should all be merged, there is no reason to have to mention an article 3 times. The overseers of the project should mentioned in the first sentence. Jon51322:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few thing come to mind. First it should say in the introduciton how long he was in the senate. I don't like the {{Quotation}} I think it looks wierd; I am sure that there are better alternatives. The "notes" and "references" sections needs to be combined: rename "notes" to references and expand the first use of the reference to what you have in "references". Last, looking that the references, the article seems to relie a lot on his own autobiography. If possible other source should be found to colaborate what he said, (or better yet contradict what he said and add a section on how his autobiography is inaccurate). Jon51321:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the separate notes and references sections is a style that many prefer. It allows listing references that verify the entire article or large portions of it in the references section and footnotes in the notes section. Specific advice, it probable needs a longer lead section, see WP:LEAD. - TaxmanTalk16:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, this article has had many reviews. Since the last one, there has been a lot of work put in, especially on referencing. Is there anything people think still needs to be done? Thanks! --Tango13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither, but I will make some suggestions regarding organization:
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should probably be expanded by briefly summarizing the article's content.
The table of contents is extremely long. I would suggest consolidating many of the smaller sections (such as "A dangerous situation", "Fuel pipelines", "Lake Temescal", to name a few) into larger ones. Numerous small sections give the article a scattered feel, anyway.
"Freeways and Overcrossings" probably does not need a subsection for each paragraph.
Many of the section titles (such as "A related fault", "BART's exceptional conditions") are more fitting for a magazine or newspaper than an encyclopedia.
"Virtual tour" should be an external link, not a section of the article.
Since the article was submitted to my desk for the Cleanup Taskforce, I have worked quite a bit on it. I would like to submit it to FAC, but I'm not quite sure it's ready yet. Comments? --Thelb415:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job - the article reads really well. If you're going for FAC, though, I have a couple quick comments:
Is it possible to get an image? Maybe from a promo packet or from a fan who will release his/her copyright?
I question whether the Dave Walker fan page is a reliable source. It might be a pain, but I would say that before the page is ready for FAC, someone needs to dig up books, magazines, or newspaper bios to serve as sources.
The article is a good start, but it is not ready for FAC. You must arrange a few things first, such as:
Poorly sourced article. Only one reference and one source! For FAC you are now obliged to citate almost every sentence! It has become so fussy! So, you have to work on that!
In terms of style, sub-sections like "Beckett", consisting of one sentence, are not nice. Try to expand or merge it. Section "Early life" is also very poor.
TheronJ already mentioned that for FAC you need at least an image (I would say more) and well-written captions.
In terms of style again, many users donot like too small paragraphs, especially paragraphs consisting of one sentence. You have too many of them!
The prose is good, but have in mind that FAC has become very demanding in this topic. As another user wrote, you should "make articles tell a story, with clear, logical reasons for why each section comes where it does".
Alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.
Expand the lead section (See WP:LEAD). That is one of the most basic things for FAC. The lead should summarize the content of the whole article.
I suggest you first go for GA Candidacy before trying FAC. And I also suggest that, after the implementation of the suggestions of this Peer Review anad before the GA or FAC, you go for a peer review by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. There are some users who are doing very good and detailed work there.--Yannismarou13:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for general feedback on the overall outline. Are there major sections that should be included? Any content feedback is also sought. Deet15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good start. Is there some sort of debate in Canada about illegal immigration like there is in the United States? Apologize if that seems like a naive question, but if there is it should be covered. Some charts showing the growth of immigration would also help. Many statements could use citations, such as the following:
most numerous among these are Chinese (3.5% of the population), South Asian (3.1%), Black (2.2%), and Filipino (1.0%).
On a compounded basis, that immigration rate represents 8.7% population growth over 10 years, or 23.1% over 25 years (or 6.9 million people).
And so on....the section "Immigration categories" could use summary style. Right now it is just basically a list. If more information can be found, expand the Illegal Immigration section. Finally, the article is missing the most essential component: a History section! This is a must to give people background.UberCryxic04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take all the comments into consideration for a re-write. No, illegal immigration is not the hot button topic it is in the U.S. because, like the article says, it's hard to get to, but I'll try to dig up more info. Deet12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not complete without a section on the history of immigration to Canada (or a summary and reference to another article on this topic). -- P19912:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the "cultural mosaic" an important and much talked about topic, counterpart to the American "melting pot".
Toronto was named by the UN as the prime example of a city where multiple ethnicities could coexist. It was particularly notable that they named Toronto above New York.
If you're going to talk about crime rates and tax costs, you'd better balance that with a discussion of the higher rates of entrepreneurship, involvement in politics, and broadened culture.
Great feedback! OK, now that's a to-do list to keep me busy. Does anyone have a reference to confirm the higher rate of entrepreneurship of immigrants (i.e., a study with evidence, not just a theory)? I would like to note crime rates, but I also don't know of any studies that actually track immigrant crime rates in Canada.
CIC is in the "see also" category link. The article used to have an "external links" section but it seemed to attract too many immigration consulting services b.s. links. Deet03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing this page for a while and would really appreciate comments from others. I'd like to know if there's information you would expect to find from the article and isn't included. Pasi12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some general observations: the lead needs to be expanded. You have two sentences now; turn these into two full paragraphs. There needs to be a History section. This can talk about the start of organized fire fighting in Finland. Some of the sections and subsections have too many lists. You can keep those in there, but beef them up with more prose. The last two sections need to be expanded. For Equipment, you can talk about the types of vehicles (automaker and stuff like that) used and so on.UberCryxic04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I already worked on the lead a bit. I'll write up about the history once I find some sources (might have some books at home, will have to see). Same thing with the lists, I can beef them up but I need to try find some sources. Always fun to write when you know the information is right but you don't have any written source for it. :) Pasi10:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a brief copyedit to try and improve word flow...there should be a reduction of the factoid style if possible and an expansion of the major themes. Examples of large fires would be helpful as would any areas of concern such as accident rates, fatality rates number of hectares burned annually...that sort of stuff.--MONGO17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The large fires idea is good, I'll see if I can find information about biggest recent and historic fires in Finland, should be easy enough. Accident rates are available from the ministery of the interior's website, I'll add them when I get back home (I'm out of town atm). Pasi19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already achieved Good Article status, so I figure that Peer review is the next step for improvement, with an aim to eventually reach Featured Article status.
I didn't completely finish the article yet, but here's a few comments:
Section "Definition of a plasma", item two says that the 'Debye screening length' is defined above. But what I see above that is only the 'Debye sphere'. Please clarify the text.
Could you explain the 'electron neutral collision frequency' in the text?
In 'Ranges of plasma parameters', the 'Heliospheric current sheet' illustration appears out of place and could perhaps be moved to a more appropriate location. The table in that same section could do with some links to the unit description pages. (E.g.T) The Density/Cosmic cell in that table is missing units. (To be consistent with the other cells.)
The article introduces the relation 'ωce / νcoll > 1' without explaining the parameters. Likewise with E = -V x B. In the "Densities" section, is Φ the same as φpl?
I'm a little unclear about what is meant by "The possibility of currents couples the plasma strongly to magnetic fields" in the "Comparison of plasma and gas phases" section table.
In the same table, the graph is appearing above the text on the Velocity distribution row.
The article as a whole has a number of significant sections without references. For example, "Mathematical descriptions".
The "Fields of active research" section is little more than a bulleted list. Could this be expanded into something that is a little more interesting to read?
Thanks for the feedback, I've taken in all the changes, except for the "Fields of active research" which I'm not sure what to do with at this stage, and will await further feedback. --Iantresman20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to suffer from a lack of technical information, though it is very good in the contextual sense. For example, a typical outline for a course on plasma physics includes:
"The concept of temperature (particularly related to the fact that plasmas are notoriously out of local thermodynamic equilibrium; the conditions of density and temperature necessary for the plasma state; discussion of fusion; motion of single charged particles in static and time varying electric and magnetic fields; plasmas described as (charged) fluids or magnetohydrodynamics; waves in plasmas; plasma heating with radio waves; kinetic theory description of plasmas including diffusion with and without magnetic fields; Debye shielding of a charge; Vlasov equation and collisionless plasmas; Landau dampening of waves; BGK single relaxation time model description of collisions; transport calculations of mass (diffusion); momentum (viscosity) and energy (heat conductivity)."
from [2].
It would be good for all of these subjects to at least be mentioned (more than a few of them already are!), if not have paragraphs or sections devoted to them. These are considered by professionals in the field to be some of the basic concepts inherent to the subject.
Thanks for the suggestions, which I shall take a look at, as well I hope, some of the other editors. I think that some of the more technical information has been deliberately removed from the article (a) because the subject is so broad (b) as an encyclopedic, rather than scientific article, an overview is more important (c) the technical stuff can form mini-articles by themselves.
For example, the section on Mathematical descriptions now links to a page on Plasma parameters.
Plasma parameters right now only deals with scaling in plasmas. There are a wide range of other ideas which are technical/mathematical but can be described for a general audience in the lists above. --ScienceApologist13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intro makes a few brief references to the history of plasma research. That should be expanded and moved to its own section. Good work otherwise! --P19912:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solid-state plasma
I came to Wikipedia's "Plasma" article looking for some introduction to solid-state plasmas, studied by Betsy Ancker-Johnson for example, and for which I found a short biblio here. While I majored in physics (long ago) I'm completely unfamiliar with the term, and believe the article would benefit from some clarification of non-gaseous plasmas, such as "electron-hole plasma". If this is an obsolete use of the word, a clarification still seems called for. Thanks. Twang07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did quite a lot of work to this article to bring it from the stub that it was to the more substanisal article it is today. I would like someone neutral to check the article over to see if anything is missing or whether it needs improving (ie. grammar, spelling, flow etc.). Any pointers, advice and suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you. --tgheretford (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would like comments on grammar and any missing sections anyone thinks should be included or current sections that should be dropped. Already put it through automated peer review. josh (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly better than most football club articles. The historical league position graph is a nice touch, and the history section is not biased towards recent events as so often happens.
The list of books should go in a Further reading section at the bottom, or if any given book has been used as a general reference, a references section (remaing the section with footnotes to Notes or Footnotes).
The Supporters section could be merged with the Fanzines section. The list of famous fans should be removed, particularly as it is unreferenced. Also, no mention of the rivalry with Sheffield United?
What criteria are used for the list of former players? In particular, why is Paulo di Canio included when he only spent 2 years at the club and made only 47 apperances?
Nothing glaringly wrong with the grammar from a quick scan. Avoid referring to the club as "SWFC".
A couple of things which should have references:
Charles Clegg being known as the Napoleon of Football.
The football and cricket clubs splitting,
At the 2005 playoff final they took over 40,000 fans. The most taken by any club side.
Thanks for your comments. I've updated the article. I reduced the list of managers to those with more than 200 matches rather than removing it all together. There isn't any one criteria for inclusion in the players list. They generally have done something exceptional (most goals, most caps etc). Di Canio is the most expensive player that Wednesday have ever bought (he also received the longest ban of any player). josh (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a bad article, though I agree with all of Oldelpaso's points. Some additional thoughts:
Reorder the intro - trophies & brief first, then discuss Hillsborough.
Club is referred to in both the singular and plural - pick one and stick to it.
If you are going to call them the Owls and SWFC during the article then mention it in the into (i.e. "also known as The Owls or SWFC")
Bibliography should be formatted according to Template:Cite book. The authors' names in the bibliography should not be wikified unless it is likely they fulfil WP:BIO.
Some details of the club crest would be nice - I've always wondered exactly when and why Wednesday picked the modern owl graphic in their crest.
Records section should be turned to prose.
Forums should not be linked to in external links, as per WP:EL.
Cheers. I've edited the article over the past days and it should satisfy your points. I haven't found any information on why the current crest was chossen so I'll do some digging for that. As for the two articles you mentioned. They were created by dan1980 (talk·contribs) so I'll have a word with him about them but I think they could possibly be improved. The staff article would serve better as a historical record of former managers and chairman along with a reduced amount of current staff. Both articles could be improved by adding information such as dates joined and match records for the squad article. josh (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously put this up for peer review for a GA nomination, which it achieved, now going for first Featured Article on wrestling in wikipedia. Since the first PR there has been a large increase in sources provided largely by myself and Calaschysm (talk·contribs), upto 63 at the time of this writing. Due to the nature of professional wrestling and sources nearly every match or feud has been sourced, and there are other elements that need sources but I have them in my head though haven't gotten around to adding them yet. If any other suggestions to increase the quality of this article could be provided it would be much appreciated. –– Lid(Talk)05:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a terrific article. Nearly every single sentence has a reliable source attached to it, making all of the information believable. I've also learned a lot of things about my idol that I never knew before through this Wiki. Although, would it be possible to shrink the References section somehow? It's getting to be quite lengthy in size. PunkCabana01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no, I already attempted to shorten it by splitting it into two seperate columns and at the lowest font size but it kept building and building. –– Lid(Talk)02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction of this article, the phrase "constituent country" has been repeatedly replaced by the weasel words "constituent entity".
This is not consistent with the other three constituent country articles (England, Scotland and Wales) nor with the constituent country article itself, nor indeed with the article that the phrase "constituent entity" has been linked to.
I had reverted the article to be consistent with the aforementioned articles and, after it was suggested to me that citations were needed, I included these also. Apparently this still wasn't good enough.
--Mal12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third peer review for El Hatillo, after this I will nominate it for featured article, so I would like to avoid any FA objections with this peer review. Here are the first and second peer reviews. For the 2nd one the changes were discussed in the talk page. Thank you.--enano(Talk)17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! I think the article has already reached a high level of quality. My remarks (with the exception of number [1] are mostly minor:
I see a preponderence of non-English, Spanish in particular, aources; this might be a problem for some FA reviewers. When more than 90% of the citations link Spanish sources, this gets a bit problematic, since this is the English and not the Spanish Wikipedia. Could you do some "injections" with more English sources?
"An engineer assisted in the urban planning, which included grid streets and a parish church,[8] built to honor Santa Rosalía de Palermo, who Baltasar believed had saved him from a plague that killed his father in prison" I don't know ... Maybe many relative clauses for this not so long sentence.
I know this is not absolutely necessary, but in the captions of your charts I would like to mention your sources. Searching, I found that the source of your first chart is some "Fuente: Instituto Nacional de Estadística." (National Institution of Statistics, probably!) When I was taught some economics I was told that often the source is more important than the statistics themselves! But maybe what I say may well be just a personal preference. In any case, the only verifications for your uncited assertion that "but demographics show a rapidly rising population" are these two charts.
In "Economy" I see no statistics. For instance, isn't there any info for the per capita GDP in the region?
"On March 8, 2000—the year after a new constitution was introduced in Venezuela—it was decreed[15]". This citation could be at the end of the sentence, which is also better for the prose flaw.
In "Law and government" we caould maybe have some more things about the relations between municipality-state-central government. What are the fiscal and legal inter-connections of the municipality with the other two institutions?
I'm not sure if "Crime" is actually a sub-section of "Law and government" or if it should be a seperate section.
It changes from article to article. I have found crime information under government or under demographics, usually within a subsection or just with the rest of the section, but rarely as a different section.--enano(Talk)17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2001 census shows enrollment of 8,525 students during the 2000-2001 school year; by the end of the school year, 8,149 had passed.[40][41][42]" Three citations in a row? ... Hmmm ... Not nice. Maybe you should combine them. There are ways to do it. See Tourette syndrome or W. S. Gilbert. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"but Don Baltasar completed his years in prison and then moved to El Hatillo, bringing the legacy of Santa Rosalía de Palermo to El Hatillo, believing she protected him from the pestilence that killed his father in Cádiz.[9]" Two long participal phrases in a row. Not nice IMO.
I see a section "References" with one source. Do you mean further reading? I see all your sources mentioned in "Notes" (which is actually "References").
Spanish versions are given sometimes as (algo), sometimes as (Spanish:algo) or sometimes as Algo with no English version. The last one isn't really a problem, but be consistent on the others.
Why are "bedroom community" and "collapse" quoted? Are they quotes or just failures to find the correct translation?
I removed the quotes from bedroom community, but I don't know if collapse has the same meaning in Spanish as it does in English, will have to discuss this with Sandy.--enano(Talk)17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, collapse is the word used in the Spanish text, and (as anyone who has driven in Caracas will attest) would be the correct word to use in English - you can remove the quotes in both cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like to know all the problems in this article so I could try to fix it! So what can be done to improve this article? --71.118.77.3000:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is done quite well. There is some repetition in the various sections of its reflectance of muslims values -- I know this is central to the doll, but I still found it repetitive. I would be nice to have an idea of sales figures -- so far only qualitative words along the lines of "very popular" are used. The criticism of women rights advocates and other critics should probably be given its own section -- and it would be useful to show how similar or different criticism of Fulla is to the standard critiques of Barbie. I'm not sure if this is a good idea but one could possibly make a chart/table that compares major statistics of Barbie with Fulla side by side -- such as height, eye color, skin color, bust size (?), clothing types, boyfriend/accessories, date of introduction, sales figures -- although maybe my technical inclination isn't really that useful when applied to an article about a girl's doll. (I just put up another article for peer review so I figured I owed some of the articles here a peer review. I am in no way an expert on girl's dolls.) --Ben Houston23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try to fix those problems, but I don't think I'll put in a chart. And I appreciate your review of the article for me. --71.105.5.20505:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have added another section called "criticism" and added sales figures. But I don't exactly know how to remove the repetition of Muslim values of the doll. Is there anyway to remove this problem or is it not that bad? --71.104.176.3305:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I (quite unexpectedly) really enjoyed reading the article. In my view, it is well written, interesting, and balanced. I agree that it is a little bit repetetive on the subject of Muslim values (although it still maintains interest). Most of the content in the 'Roles' section is repeated elsewhere so perhaps you could remove that section. I think the section itself is fine, but doesn't add anything you haven't covered elsewhere. I would interested in knowing if Fulla and Barbie have been designated IQs by their creators.
I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article, and I'm happy for your review. And I think I'll remove the "Roles" section, since that is where the most repetition is located. And I'm sorry to say that there is no designated IQs from their creators. -71.160.17.15607:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now removed the "Roles" section, and I also added that Barbie and Fulla have about the same worldwide sales in the "Differences with Barbie" section. So is there anything else in the article that can be improved upon? Or is the repetetiveness of of Muslim values still a strong problem? Does anyone think this article would be ready to be a good article? --71.105.13.6418:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alain hasn't really got the respect that I think he deserves in his F1 career - perhaps his unexcusible actions in Japan 1989 after he took out Ayrton Senna hasn't really help - Anyway back to the peer review - I've managed to sort out the article becauseit was ina complete mess when I saw it and now I think that I've revamped it. Take a look for yourself, here is the version before I started editing it: [4]. Anyway, can some people please tell me what else I need to do to get this to FA or GA and perhaps give me some sentences that I could source. Much appreciated. --SkullyCollinsReview Me! Please?15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good for the most part, a couple of comments:
Subheadings seem overused. While FA Damon Hill uses a subheading for every season, the subsections there are generally more substantial. Single paragraph chunks of three or four lines break up the flow.
The part about the rivalry with Senna should be converted into continuous prose rather than a bulleted list, and should be renamed to something like Rivalry with Ayrton Senna – the title of an article need not be included in section titles.
There are a few instances where the prose is rather passive e.g. The half point was scored when the Monaco Grand Prix was stopped at half distance, meaning the top six drivers would only receive half scores could be The half point was scored when the Monaco Grand Prix was stopped at half distance, meaning the top six drivers only received half scores
The section about Senna's death reads like an opinion piece or review, and is probably undue weight in an article about Prost.
Large parts of the article are sparsely referenced. Taking the early life section as an example, breaking his nose and winning several karting championships are two things which ought to be referenced.
Many editors have contributed to this article and I think it is somewhat well written and a good article. I'd like to incorporate others' ideas and improvements. I notice that the scoring table is a little strange, so maybe someone can fix that too. Thanks for your time. Ryanminier14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several quick points:
the strategy section should be fleshed out, and the list of "commandments" removed, or at the very least restated in a more formal fashion
the dealing section should be compressed somewhat - it seems too long for what should be a reasonably easy thing to explain. (Also, I don't think that dealing cards one by one is uncommon)
an image showing and describing how the scoring is done would be useful
I'm not sure if everything labelled as being a Midwest rule or style is actually just done in the Midwest. For example, "first black jack deals" is done in Ontario too.
we need to check facts for the Guernsey variation.
I have made some recent additions to the article, but I still would like to see some guidance on helping this article Featured. I have sent it through peer review twice, but the last one was responded only by a automatic script. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good overall. "The way of carrying out the referendum was heavily criticized by the opposition" could do with citing. "Some claim that this failure to win a majority is a violation of the Law, but the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian Law cannot resolve the issue." That sentence is a bit unclear - do the people who claim it is a violation also claim Belarusian law is imperfect and incomplete, or are the comments on the law supposed to be factual. Either way, it also needs citing. Trebor21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the statement about the "Belarusian law is imperfect.." and I cited the rest of your points. I listed one of the complaints by the opposition and cited that and your first point. I added a cite to the second point, since it is true that while a majority of the population did not vote for the symbols, the many people who did vote on it did. Thanks again. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I gave the article a full read-through and it seems good - nothing jumps out at me to be improved. It might be time to try for featured article again. Trebor22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite interesting but unbalanced - not enough on aspects other than the plates and far too much weight given to the popular culture section in comparison to the "technical" sections. Some more specific comments:
It could so with some images - there are plenty at wikimedia commons (some of which seem to have been in the old version).
Lead:The phrasing of the meaning of "Stegosaurus" is clunky - the explanation of the Greek is disconnected from English translation. It also differs slightly from the translation in the next section ("roof-lizard" v "roof(ed) lizard")
Lead:The second section of the lead reads like "here are some dinosaur names but there are others as well". Try and work in a connection to Stegosaurus - did they share a habitat, compete for resources, was it a prey animal for some? (good point, working on this)Cas Liber02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of inline citations for a great many claims. I've added {{fact}} tags to some but there are a lot more needed (although there is considerable improvement from the state of the old article).
References should follow punctuation according the manual of style (I think I've moved most of those).
There are a lot of weasel phrases: "more recent", "probably" etc.
The second point in Plate arrangement looks out of place as it doesn't indicate the arrangement first (as the other 3 do).
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
* Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
* Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[9]
* Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[10]
* There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
o it has been
o apparently
o apparently
o might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[17]
* Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
o Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
* Please provide citations for all of the [citation needed]s.
* Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [16]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, 71.251.36.207 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be thoroughly reviewed and vetted to ensure the quality of the information presented there. --evrik02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A small but interesting piece of European zoological and art history. The article includes the main images, and refers to two main recent references, but anyone with access to Donald Lach's three-volume A Century of Wonder from the 1970s, or L.C. Rookemaaker's Bibliography of the Rhinoceros from 1983 is particularly welcome. I will be on wikibreak shortly, but am looking to take this to WP:FAC towards the end of August: any comments or contributions are welcome. -- ALoan(Talk)02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting and fairly flawless in my opinion. Unfortunately I don't have either of the books, so I can only make general comments. I did a bit of copyediting (trying to reduce the instances of "the rhinoceros"). Some minor niggles:
"The rhinoceros advanced slowly and deliberately towards its foe; the elephant, unaccustomed to the noisy crowds who turned out to witness the spectacle, fled the field in panic without a blow being struck." - I'm likely to be wrong but this sounds like a direct quote from the source in which case it should be in quote marks.
"and a green velvet collar decorated with flowers" - should this be "and wearing a green velvet collar decorated with flowers"?
"impagliato" should be explained
"...then created a woodcut from the second drawing, with the process of fabrication making one a reflection of the other." I found this phrasing awkward but couldn't see how to recast it.
"Burgkmair corresponded with merchants in Lisbon and Nuremberg, but it is not clear whether he had access to a letter or sketch like Dürer's or saw the original in Portugal." I rephrased this to make it clearer, but you'd better check I understood it correctly from the original.
"Only one copy of Burgkmair's image has survived, but Dürer's original single block print was copied many times." - there is no real connection between the two parts of the sentence. You should say whether many copies of Dürer's survive and/or whether Burgkmair's was copied at all.
"Non buelvo sin vencer" should be "No vuelvo sin vencer" in modern Spanish. I've been unable to discover whether the original quote is correct as the motto or whether Bendini has misquoted it.
"where it today retains the name Panzernashorn." This is a bit of a non-sequitur. My German isn't up to much, but I assume that this has some intimate connection to Dürer's print?
Many thanks casting your eyes over it. I am quite proud of it, but glad for your further polishing.
That is not a quote - I wrote it based on the account given in Bedini.
I'm not sure whether the rhinoceros ever wore the collar - one was certainly created and sent with it.
impagliato is (I understand) the Italian for "stuffed with straw"
If I could, I would explain the technique, but I have not seen an account. I suspect the drawing was placed over the wood block and the design was pricked out.
Your rephrasing is fine.
There is only one original Burgkmair and one known derivative, a carving in a church in Minden. I have no idea how may original 1515 Dürer printings survive; there were many printings afterwards, and a whole host of "knocked off" copies. It and its derivatives are very well represented in a wide range of media.
The motto is correct - Bedini includes an illustration.
Panzernashorn means something like "armoured rhinoceros".
I also cited the dermatitis (although the source is slightly flakey) and modified your unicorn change (they are properly mythological, after all). But thanks again. (I am slightly surprised that no-one has complained about the format of my external links yet...) -- ALoan(Talk)12:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The unicorn change you made is much better and the external links look fine to me - I always think that area is a bit of free-for-all anyway. You are right to be proud, it's a good bit of work. (BTW, the motto might make a good addition to the Alessandro de' Medici article). Cheers, Yomanganitalk13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After taking several suggestions from other portal experts, I would like to present this to the public-at-large to get their opinions. It is regularly updated, and I would like to know if it is ready to be featured, or at least what changes need to be made to reach this end. Let me know what you think--I'll be watching this section AdamBiswanger101:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find something to criticise about it, and was about to admit defeat when I found that the archives are a bit strange: the selected article archive has an archived article from December 2006, and there are a lot of redlinks in the other archives for articles that will be archived in the future. Perhaps the selected poem could have a bit of background too, but apart from that I can't see a thing wrong with it. Yomanganitalk11:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--I could easily fill the rest of the red links in the archive section, but I want to give other editors a chance to add their selections, as opposed to filling it with mine. But, I will surely have each ready in time should red links remain. Thanks, AdamBiswanger123:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I thought of "Archive" as "Previous Articles" which is why it seemed a bit strange, but that was just my prejudice. So, in fact, nothing wrong with it at all. Yomanganitalk00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro: "world's biggest bands" = "world's most popular bands" ?
The second paragraph of "Recording" mixes various tenses and is generally poorly worded.
"...but declares that he "need[s] no sympathy" because nothing matters." I thought he says he needs no sympathy because he's "easy come, easy go". No?
easy come, easy go is something that you say in order to describe someone who thinks that everything is easy to achieve, and who therefore does not worry about anything.
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
A little high, little low
Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me
I think that's different than "because nothing matters": he needs no sympathy because he doesn't care, not because nothing matters. Maybe I'm splitting hairs... -- bcasterline • talk03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some explanation or context for the lyrical allusions in the Opera would be nice.
"This was a very small sum compared to the multi-million dollar industry music videos have become" commentary seems out of place to me.
The section "Promotional video" would benefit from some more inline citations, especially:
"It was created for the sole purpose of allowing the band to be on tour and appear "live" on the BBC's Top of the Pops."
If possible, I would like an opinion on the article from someone who has no or little interest in the topic. Does it inform you of the television's show general plot? Is it set out properly that it is linear to read and understand? I would also appreciate if reviewers could recommend any sections they think need cleaned up or added to make the article clearer to general readers. -- Britishagent03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall it gives good coverage of the subject and the layout is good. Some quick points:
The lead covers material that I can't see in the rest of the article when it should be a summary and introduction - I wanted to know if the original series were ever shown on the BBC outside of Scotland for example, and the comparison of viewing figures should probably be covered in the "Critical praise and criticism" section
"Critical praise and criticism" might be better titled "Critical reception" as it avoids doubling up on critical/criticism.
It needs copyediting - there are some mistakes such as "escaping his neighbours from hell to vacate to a flat near Victor" ("relocate to" maybe?), and some redundancy: "its use of Neds and stereotypes" - Neds are stereotypes.
It is overlinked - no need to link common phrases like car,lift,television,sex,shop etc. or dates that have no relevance to the article such as the link to "June".
The air dates should probably have the channel on which they aired next to them
A note to say that the article has been updated following the above suggestions. If possible, can you please look over it and again, give welcome opinions on the article? Thanks again. -- Britishagent10:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a lot better. The air date information is much clearer and the criticism section improved by the rearrangement There are still some overlinking (decorators,the loss of his wife) and this phrase is strange "awaiting a visit from his son, John who stays in Johannesburg", does that mean he fails to turn up for the visit? The title of the air dates table would probably look better included in the table (but now I'm just being picky). Nice work. Yomanganitalk11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speedy reply and for your further comments. I've included Still Game into the table and tried to de-link a lot of the words. You're right - they're not needed. I can't help you on the phrase though as I haven't seen the episode in a long time! I'm sure he doesn't turn up but I don't want to add it, just in case. -- Britishagent11:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a peer review as a first step toward making this a Featured Article. This article is the first collaboration project of the Country Music Wikiproject. A lot of work has been done so far but we would like fresh sets of eyes to go over the article and suggest ways to improve it to Featured Article quality. Of course, any help in copyediting and referencing is whole-heartedly welcomed!--WilliamThweatt03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can also check out the WP:MUSTARD guidelines, at least some of which apply here.
Most music genres and styles are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalized (e.g. "rock'n'roll" and "honky tonk")
Wikipedia I believe uses rock and roll, so unless there's a good reason to use a different format, please stick with that.
A single section for "Biography" with subsections would be better than separate top-level sections for childhood, career and death. All sections should have a paragraph or two of text, even if there are subsections. (e.g. the "childhood" section (if kept) should have 2 paragraphs or so summarizing the most important info in the subsections)
Some statements needs cites (e.g. "He was born with a mild undiagnosed case of spina bifida occulta, a disease of the spinal column, which gave him life-long pain—a factor in his later abuse of alcohol and drugs" and "two singles for Sterling Records, "Never Again" (1946) and "Honky Tonkin'" (1947), both of which were successful." - anything related to the relative success of a recording should be cited). There should not be any sections (nor paragraphs, really) without citations at all.
The note under "Later career" needs to be acted upon.
Some overwikifying, I think.
The "legacy and influences" section is really poor, and doesn't really cover his legacy or influences.
The "Selected list of cover versions of Hank Williams songs" needs to be removed unless there's a coherent, neutral and non-WP:OR way to present it - who selected this list, and why? Same thing with "Tributes".
More sound samples would be nice, ideally with a description of how each sample is specifically relevant to his life
"Quotes" should be moved to Wikiquote, linked from here and deleted.
For such an incredibly important figure, more references are needed, especially scholarly and critical evaluations.
Thank you. I requested peer review two weeks ago and you're the first to make a serious effort to help improve the article. It is much appreciated. We're hoping to produce an article worthy of FA status, but we realize that, although it has been improved, it's still far from our goal. Your suggestions are all excellent and I will work on implementing them over the next few days.--WilliamThweatt04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this article really does need some inspection of some sort because it is also a nominee for featured article. Plus, I would like some review on the article on my favorite baseball team. Falconleaf00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I wanted to find out was what the expansion packs were called. And I was surprised there were no sections dealing directly with this, instead having been mentioned in the plot or races sections. I think a good thing would be to write a synopsis of the main plot of the game, then have a subsection on each of the main plots for the expansions (zilart/promathia/that new one) for example and then elaborate upon what these expansion packs bring. (More detailed synopses of the expansions can be forked in their own articles).
Reviews are an absolute must and with a Japanese game link FF, it would be nice to have a japanese source too (like Famitsu). Western sources will be very easy to find, pretty much every single gaming publication will have reviewed this. Also make a mention of the expansion packs.
How many players are there? Altogether and in a single server at any time?
One thing I wanted to respond to here: As you can see in the Plot sub-section of the Gameplay section, there are no less than eight different, major plot branches in this game. It hurts my head to try to think of how to summarize the different storylines in the game, or try to boil them down to one overall summary. I honestly wouldn't even know where to start. I would be very afraid that any attempts to do so would resemble the mess that was the storyline section of Final Fantasy VII before some very dedicated people cleaned it up, or that it would look like the crufty nightmare that List of Final Fantasy XI characters is in places. If we could hash out the relevant points to include and what to leave out, I'd be willing to take a stab at it, but as it is I almost find it easier to let the game setting speak for the storyline, as much of a cop-out as that is. -RaCha'ar21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One option you have is to work on it elsewhere (either a separate sandbox page or offline), and not insert it until you're happy with it. I've written sections this way, and it definitely helps in making it cohesive and less random. Nifboy22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is just one story with many different aspects and parts. Take a look at The History of Vana'diel, despite being on seperate pages in the mission log, they are all interwoven, build on each other and are just one big story. --Anibas11:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking a basic description of gameplay; assume a reader knows little about video games and nothing about MMO parlence.
The gameplay section has some strategy-esque statements in it. For example, "Once the player has attained level 18 on any job, he may complete a Support Job quest in either Selbina or Mhaura." The facts that it occurs specifically at level 18 and in two specific areas is of no real consequence.
The plot section seems rather weaselly; "a sense of individual heroism" is a rather subjective statement that ought to be cited.
The economy section contains some outright original research: "Hard figures are unknown, but it would not be far-fetched to assume that some (if not many) servers may have a GDP of well over a trillion Gil."? Kill it with fire.
Ambiguous statements: It is not obvious whether PvP takes place "in the wild" or in specific set-aside areas. Similarly, I thought "engaging in successful battles with an enemy in a region" (national alleigance section) referred specifically to PvP. Also, "Depending on the rules set by the MC" -- What's an MC?
Three-sentence "music" section needs expanded or merged elsewhere.
"Ingame controversy" should be remade into a general-purpose reception/reviews/criticism section, and cite sources. One rule I live by is "The fandom doesn't matter", mostly because they're virtually impossible to cite using good sources.
I hate the Game Economy section and always have. I totally agree with Nifboy that it smacks of OR, and I always wanted to cut the amateur economist babble out of the article. However, I've been uncertain as to how to acknowledge and explain the difficulties of the game economy without those terms, so this has remained intact for a long time.
I've already started going through and trying to cull out references to game mechanics. I hadn't really realized what a mess the article had become from that point of view.
I've also never been a fan of the controversy/gilseller portions of this article, which have never been NPOV, and I'm not sure if they ever can be.
I've not played the game for several months now, and I'm hoping that some distance from it will allow me to look at the article with a more objective eye, compared with whatever lingering expertise I have from having played it for two and a half years (sob!). I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the review.
Currently parts of the article aren't really ordered, for example the reception, jumping between dates and console, using different numbers for the play base (once it's the registered users, once it's the daily playing users). Furthermore I see another problem with the article, you currently have over fourty references almost all of them in the Development and Reception parts of the article. In the reception part there are definitely too many, almost every sentence there has its own reference, they are distracting from the text. --Anibas18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on money has undergone extensive revision, with many topics moving off into their own articles such as the history of money, commodity money, economics, and so on. Many of the comments on the discussion page were addressing part of the article on money that no longer exist, or have been moved to other locations.
The sections on the essential characteristics and desirable features of money have been more clearly defined.
The section on etymology needs a little beefing up; it was mostly moved along with the history of money.
The section on money supply toward the end of the article should probably be moved to another article; it seems to dominate the article inappropriately, as this is more of a political policy discussion.
There may need to be new sections added on the topic of money. Perhaps a section titled the politics of money. Or Money and Religion, or Religious teachings on money. Or perhaps also the relation of banking to money, rather than just credit as money--which is discussed. Such sections need to be handled carefully, as they are extremely hot topics, and the neutral point of view must be upheld.
Although the discussion of usury in relation to money is now in the usury article, something probably needs to be said about how money and usury relate here in the article on money.
Jason Hommel07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like pulling large sections like history of money out onto separate pages, but paring down the section on the main page to nothing but "Money has developed over the years from gold, silver, copper, brass, iron, stones, or shells to paper, or electronic entries being managed by complex international banking systems." seems like a bit much. It should be a good solid couple of paragraphs. Also, I'm not sure the section on slang words for money is necessary, and if it is, it's much too long. I'd pull it into a separate article and link to it at the bottom under "see also." Jun-Dai20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote this article a month ago. I tried to find some guidelines on "articles on books", but found none. I am requesting a peer review in the hope that someone may enlighten me on the process. This is a somewhat strange book. It is a short one, compare to most books by Richard Dawkins. It is not as much a book as a set of five chapters on topics in Darwinian evolution. Each chapter is really a summary of current theories on the topic and of Dawkins' own earlier books. As a result, I did not include things like "acclaims", "criticisms", etc., because these should really go to the respective books summarized here. So, instead, I further summarized his five chapters and added abundant links to other wiki articles whenever appropriate. Fred Hsu05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For one, this article doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It's more of a book report, summarizing the sections of the book. For an encyclopedia article, there should be a lot more focus on the relevance of the book. Try to find information on how the book has influenced other books, how it was received, etc. Ideally less than 10% (to pick an arbitrary amount) should be on the book itself. After all, synopsizing and analysis are really a form of original research, which is generally discouraged here. Looking through other featured articles on books, that percentage might be closer to 20 or 30, but in any case, it's much too high for this article. Jun-Dai06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I'll conduct more researches. I will give the automated review a try tonight. By the way, unlike other peer review requests, this is NOT meant to be the first step towards FA-dom. I just wanted to gather feedback on the right way to write these types of articles. Fred Hsu02:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather short for a featured article. Good start, but it could use some expansion.
The lead is short, and the juxtaposition "...H2 receptor antagonists. These drugs..." is awkward (I assume "these drugs" refers to PPIs, not H2 receptor antagonists). Statements like "outstanding safety and efficacy" also need inline citations despite being supported by later referenced text.
Definitely show the chemical structure of a representative molecule. It would be great if the receptor-inhibitor complex structure has been solved, but that sounds like a difficult crystallographic project. If there's any solved structure of the protein, that should get an image too.
Just a list of treatable conditions isn't enough for "clinical use". It would be nice to have contraindications, what type of treatment PPIs are (last resorts or the first thing the doctor gives you when he hears the word "heartburn"?), any well-known or common side effects, etc. Definitely convert from list to prose. (Speaking of heartburn, I thought that was a common use of these drugs, and it's mentioned later but isn't on the list?)
The mechanism section is very vague at the moment - might be the effect of targeting the writing to a too-low level. What residue(s) do PPIs modify and what is the result - physically blocking the channel, preventing a conformational change? Should also explain briefly how H2 receptor antagonists work, why PPIs work better, and whether there are any cases where the older drugs are more appropriate.
There's mention that the inhibition is irreversible due to covalent modification. More on that would be useful if the research exists. What happens to the inactive proteins (targeted to the proteasome?) and does the body replenish its supply of receptors?
The drug is given in an "inactive form", apparently from later discussion a deprotonated form. Chemical structures would be very useful here, and if known, an illustration of the reaction mechanism.
The pharmacokinetics section is much more technical than the mechanism section, which isn't a bad thing, but it suddenly mentions individual PPI molecules without having introduced or described them.
What's the practical effect of the drug's half-life in the body? How often do patients have to take the drugs?
Depending on the amount of information, adverse effects might be best merged with the clinical uses section. As it stands it's a bit awkward to start with clinical information, jump to biochemistry, and then jump back to the clinic.
There's no mention of history at all. How were these molecules originally discovered? Synthesized? Which one was the first to market? Over-the-counter, prescription-only, or does it depend on the specific type? AFAIK the ones you listed are all available in the US; are they approved and commonly used in other countries?
Might also be worth mentioning their presence in the social sphere - marketing schemes especially. This is a very competitive market, right?
Good start. More information of clinical relevance would be good (i.e. PPI's for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer disease vs. non-ulcer dyspepsia vs. Helicobacter eradication). A little more on physiology (how high does the pH get with in the stomach with PPI's, and more) I can help with that. More adverse effects (Laheij also had a paper looking at upper respiratory tract infections, there's a Canadian Medical Association Journal paper on Clostridium difficile infections, and a little more about bacterial overgrowth). Prose is always preferred over lists (I'm personally a big fan of lists where appropriate though). Opabinia is right about social relevance and competitiveness of drug companies in this market. Little things (ZES and gastrinoma could be in the same line, add a little about IV preparations and how they've changed management of hemorrhage). More about how esomeprazole was developed would be good. Differences in the PPIs (time of onset, how lansoprazole is available in capsule form, esomeprazole dissolves in water, etc.) Consider putting it up on WP:GI and WP:CLINMED for a broader range of opinions. I'll work on it myself also. -- Samirधर्म01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution I am looking for is in the form of criticism from authors who do not have a direct interest in this topic. Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory is a theory of transsexual behavior known mostly for part of it's taxonomy as the "theory of Autogynephilia". This theory attempts to explain the phenomena of male to female transsexuality by way of the sexual preferences of the subjects of the theory. This theory has been the source of much controversey. The history of the article reflects this controversey. The current version of the article seems to be as Npov and of the best quality it can be.
Authors and editors who are not personally involved in this topic could advise on the clarity of the article to someone who is just looking for casual information. Does the article inform the reader without any bias? Is the article a clear presentation of a psychological theory? etc. My personal background is some education in physics I am not sure how psychologist structure the presentation of their theories. In short is the article clear, concise, and informative with no bias.
It's on it way to becoming an FA. Is there any major details that the article lacks? Is there any bad prose? All comments are appreciated -- Selmo(talk)05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here a few quick minor details that could be fixed up. Using AndyZpeerreviewer.
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), offence (B) (American: offense), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation).~ Joe Jklin(TC)07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second peer review for this article. The first one went quite well but I was never quite happy enough with the article to nominate it for FA. Since then I have continued to work on and off on it, and have most importantly widened the references and cited a lot of facts. It was close to FA, and still is, but needs that extra little bit of effort and some more eyes. The subject is huge, so this is an overview of the important aspects of seabird biology. One of the most fustrating things about seabirds is that for every statement you make you seem to need to qualify with of course, not all seabirds do this! Anyways, please help by pointing out what still seems weak, what statements that need cites still haven't got them, all that stuff. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbirdtalk23:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only glanced at this yet, but it looks brilliant. I did notice that in some places you have spaces between periods and references that should be removed. I'll try and go through this more thoroughly as soon as I can. darkliight[πalk]08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting and well balanced, but could do with some more citations for facts (even though it has a lot of references they aren't necesarily all cited in the appropriate places). There a lot of generalizations, but I guess that is hard to avoid in such a wide subject. I gave it a copyedit to remove some repetition and redundancy. Some more specific comments (more or less in order):
The qualification in the opening sentence is a little awkward. They spend much of their lives at sea - I don't think you need the rider.
The lead has a few fuzzy statements about species that would read better if sharpened up. At the moment it has a feeling of trying to cover all possible variations by species rather than just providing an introduction to seabirds.
Albatross or albatrosses? Swaps between the two throughout the article.
"unlike terrestrial birds" - is that the correct name for non-seabirds? Terrestrial birds make me think of flightless birds.
"In spite of their reputation as pirates" doesn't really add anything to the sentence (apart from a second use of pirate).
"Overall many hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of birds" - make a decision.
"even well meaning tourists, can flush a colony" - flush a colony? What does that mean? Drive off the parent birds?
"The removal of these introduced species has led to increases in surviving species " - an increase in populations of surviving species or an increase in the number of species surviving (i.e. a decrease in the rate of species going extinct)?
The Lord of the Rings reference could do with being trimmed - details of where it is used isn't necessary
The species list could do with some punctuation to separate the latin from the common names (just being picky now).
Thanks for your review. On the matter of references, that is the majority of the work I am doing now, I hunt them down and add them. I originally wrote this before inline citation was important on WP and while I know that it's accurate tracking down the papers needed is taking time. But I know that a lot more needs to be done. As for generalisations, yep, it's the nature of the beast. Getting this far has taken me 18 months cause its so fustrating to write. You can never write "seabirds do X" cause there are always some that don't!. All your other points are good and I will deal with them. Ta! Sabine's Sunbirdtalk01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with each of the comments, please unstrike them if you feel it isn't there yet. I have cleaned up the intro (a great deal of which was hand me down from the original article I started with), but I may do more so I haven't striked it. On reconsideration I have decided to leave the LOTR bit as is. Having an explanation of how birds fit into popular culture, rather than simply stating they do with an example, is more rewarding, and it leaves less room for every fanboy to come and list how their fad has a seabird in it. I'd rather have one example, explained well, than a list namechecking every reference. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk03:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in reviewing the changes - everything looks good now (I don't think the intro needs any more work), and you are probably right in trying to fend off fanboy additions by keeping the LOTR explanation. Yomanganitalk00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A through copy-edit for proper usage and grammar would be helpful. Beware of snake sentences, especially. Could the second picture of the iconic banner be moved to a better position within the article? Right now it and the TOC are causing a large break in the text between the introduction and the first section. And more inline citations would be helpful -- perhaps some of the external links could be cited and then become references? -Fsotrain0901:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One comment about the cover of Time: the use of a magazine cover in an article that doesn't talk about that issue, but just uses it as an illustration, doesn't fall under the fair use that Wikipedia fair use policy allows. You might want to expand the fair use claim in the image. This isn't enforced for FA, but I did notice this for my own current FAC and fixed it for a couple of images. Take a look at this image, at the "Rationale for fair use" section, and you'll see what I mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs)
I'm not a fair use expert, so what I did was ask about this at the fair use project talk page. Here's that discussion; it looks to me from this as if the image page is where the fair use claim should live. I'm not completely clear that your use is fair use, in this case; it does look as if you are illustrating with it. Or are you using it as supporting evidence of Walesa's prominence at that time? That would be good enough, I think. Mike Christie11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So few inline references might prove insufficient for a FA-level article. Additionally, there are some inline external links that should be converted into refs. There are at least 9 more o
Some FAC reviewers are fond of detailed fair-use rationales for each non-PD pic.
As for criticism, I agree, but I think this would rather belong in the main article (which is certainly not GA-near, and this is why I split the good history section fromt he otherwise uncomplete article). This is just 'history of...', and I don't think it needs 'criticism of...' section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments below. Overall the article is in fair shape.
Lead-in: what is "the ride"? A Disneyland ride? Generally I think the lead-in could be shortened -- some of the contents seem more suitable to the body of the article, such as the paragraph about his personal characteristics. I don't know anything about this movie, and I think by the end of the lead-in I should know more than I do -- e.g. is Biff the hero? A villain? A minor character? I think a brief note on the relevance to Thomas Wilson's career would be good, too; was this a breakthrough role for Wilson? Or a minor role for a major actor? Finally, it would be nice to get rid of that "spoiler warning" in the lead, but I'm not sure that that's possible for a fictional character.
Pre-Back to the Future: I'd use "grandmother" instead of "grandma" for an encyclopaedia article. It would be good to cite sources for the deductions and so forth about the timeline of events in his life. You currently have no footnotes; let me know if you need help formatting them -- they can be tricky. You refer to draft scripts; have these been published? If so it would be good to cite them, and even list them or point to another article about them. This applies to the later sections too; I won't repeat it below. An overall list of sources, in addition to the references, wouldn't hurt, as a separate section later in the article. Where is Mason Street -- in Hill Valley? You don't actually say that he still lives there. I assume this is not a real street.
Back to the Future: After reading this, I understand Biff's role among the main characters. I don't need a detailed plot synopsis earlier than this, but as I said above I think by the time I get here I should already know he's the villain (or perhaps could be described as the main oppositional character to the hero and his father). I also think some explanation of "original timeline" is necessary; I've read enough sf to understand all the implications of this quickly, but a general reader may have read no sf. You can link to an article with more details about time-travel paradoxes if you think that's appropriate, but at least a sentence of explanation about what's going on here is needed.
Attempt to delete page has led me to edit. I have done what I can, but I do not know what else to do to prevent deletion. I have permission from Director of LA Freewaves to create page and freely use information and materials contained within website. I attempted to assert this on WP:CP but I do not know what else to do. Thanks for any help to make page meet wikipedia criteria.--Freewaves00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am quite pleased with the progress you made on it; I am quite proud of you. However, try and add some history to the various exhibitions, eg year it was launched, planning time, just the basic facts. --JB Adder | Talk13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit of information to the article recently gleaned from the museum housed there. I'd like to know how and where this article can be improved. Any suggestions are welcome! Cєlαя∂σяєTalk00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some brief notes:
Overall it's pretty brief. Perhaps you could find some more interesting history and give a longer description of the 'ground floor room panelling' and the 'long gallery'? Could you give a more detailed description of the interior of the house? How many square metres is it?
There are no references. Please use inline citations to provide sources for the material.
The History section should be moved before the architecture, as is the convention.
Rather than a dash (-) as a sentence break, please use the mdash character (HTML: —).
'commisioned' appears to be missing an 's', unless that's how its spelled over there.
I've added a reference section and included the images of england website - lot's of juicy information there to include (but don't violate copyright)
The article might benefit from information about the buildings context - eg. the buttermarket area - why was this so called - is it contemporary to ancient house - what was the relationship of the building to it's surroundings over time. etc.
More pictures - it would be great if you could snap the four panels of the pargeting so we can see the tudor view of the world for ourselves.
This is currently a very well written, and generally good article. However, its lacking references, which is holding it back from becoming featured. I'm sure it needs something else though, anyone care to comment on how it can be improved? — Wackymacs20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section "The original Apple II" is very lengthy and should be broken down into subsections. Maybe one section for the 'standard' equipment and one section on the design process.
There's a faint air of fanboyism in the history section, especially in the discussion of Woz and his "design sensibility".
The history section says that "quirky and brilliant programmers" were the platform's "lifeblood" but the lead emphasizes the use of the Apple II by non-experts in business and education. Somewhere there needs to be a link between these two things; explicitly state that one reason for the Apple II's popularity with non-experts was the wide range of software distributed for it. (I assume that's the case; I've never been a Mac person and I'm not terribly familiar with the history.)
The "Models" section is very long - since many of these models actually have their own articles, consider condensing and summarizing the material in this one to preserve readability.
There's not much coverage of the marketing of the Apple II. How, where, and to whom was it advertised? Did it ever ship with a monitor or other peripherals? Was the educational popularity propelled by discount pricing on the hardware? Etc.
On similar lines, the "Industry impact" section mentions that Apple II's were often bought just to run VisiCalc - what were the other options? How long was VisiCalc Apple II-only? Did Apple's later products really compete directly with the Apple II or were they targeting other markets?
Any criticisms of the Apple II that are relevant and notable?
Some things I noticed just in the "Origins" section:
The original retail prices should be cited.
Calling Wozniak by his nickname "Woz" is too chummy. The nickname can be mentioned at his own article, but here it should be spelled out "Wozniak" each time.
"Woz laid out the circuit board several times..." I am not sure what "laid out" means here (Formulated a design? Physically placed the computer parts in front of himself to examine? Explained to others?) and the whole sentence is a bit awkward.
"The Apple II's brilliant quirks served as a gauntlet that drew scores of equally quirky and brilliant programmers to the platform: these people became the Apple II's lifeblood." This sentence seems out of place in a neutral encyclopedia article, and as Opabinia notes, it seems at cross-purposes with the machine's previously stated aims.
Where were these computers physically assembled? Or is this not particularly relevant?
Requesting peer review as step towards Featured Article Status - I feel the article, while brief, meets the FA standards. --Trödel15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from repeating the automated suggestions I have very little to add, It is well-written, concise, and comprehensively referenced. I think it will struggle in FAC review though, because of the length. Some comments:
Thalidomide is capitalized once and lowercase the rest of the time.
Does Sulfanilamide need to be capitalized? If it does, it possibly links to the wrong article (doesn't make much sense in this context)
It would be good to replace some instances of "Kelsey" and "Geiling" in the second section with "he" or "she" for readability.
The "Early career and marriage" section is perhaps a little too short to merit its own section, but it is hard to see how you could rearrange it, as it doesn't fit well in either the preceding or following sections
Although thalidomide has its own article, a little background and some relevant detail wouldn't go amiss - for instance the manufacturer (Grünenthal?) isn't even mentioned by name and the purpose of the drug isn't explained.
A bit more detail on her role in withholding approval would be helpful. Was it solely her responsibility? Was the additional information ever provided? What form did the pressure from the manufacturer take? Perhaps some more detail on what the English study involved.
The last section is very brief. I suspect there is more detail that could be added here (perhaps by combining the awards section as two of these are awarded late in her career).
There are a couple of sentences that would benefit from copyediting. For example: "Kelsey returned to her work at the FDA.", "..continued to work" would be better here unless you can point to her leaving the FDA earlier.
I think the length of the article is just fine. The FAC criteria states only that an article needs to be of "appropriate length", not some specific number of kBytes. Just adding bloat to meet some ill-defined quota doesn't make for a great article, IMO. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx - I am against bloat - however, as I suspected there is more to the story and to the life of Kelsey - I have been researching offline and found one good source of additional information about Kelsey's motivations and the other details behind the thalidomide application, and am looking for more about the remainder of Kelsey's career at the FDA - as such a prominent person early on - and one of only 6 doctors on staff at the time of the passage of the legistlation - it stands to reason she had an impact - I just need to find good sources to verify that hunch :) --Trödel22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't suggesting padding. A short article can meet the standards for FA but it can raise questions of comprehensiveness that don't come up as often with long articles. Yomanganitalk22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a little short - seems like it should include diagnostic methods and prevalence info at least. Also, the mention of resection before 1mm - I assume that's a statistical association, but it sounds rather arbitrary and probably needs a citation.
Only one question: the first sentence says melanoma is a malignant tumor, but later in the lead there's a mention of "premalignant" melanoma. Is it necessarily malignant, and if so, is there a separate term for the early stages? Opabinia regalis15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many sections are quite listy. The staging section obviously should be a list, but even some of the prose sections - History and Epidemiology especially - read like a series of only somewhat related sentences rather than a coherent story. This may be because research hasn't told a very coherent story yet, but it should still be synthesized more clearly if possible. "Prevention" should definitely be prose, except the "mnemonic" (where did that come from anyway?)
The ABCDE mnemonic comes from the Asymmetrical, Border, Color, Diameter, Evolution words. But the sections says "(see "ABCDE" mnemonic below.)" because in the list below these letters are bold too. NCursework08:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, everybody (medical students, doctors, scientists). I can't show you exact reference for it, because there isn't any. But everybody uses it. NCursework18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think epidemiology looks pretty good. On second glance my only real problem with the history section is the first sentence: "While there is little serious doubt that melanoma is not a relatively new disease..." is just too many double negatives and qualifiers in one place. Is there any serious doubt? Opabinia regalis20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better, but do you really need "relatively"? Is there any intended comparison to the historicity (is that a word?) of other cancers? Opabinia regalis04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is NOT a new disease, just we weren't so brave to write it like that. But I removed relatively and inserted a reference (which can't be found on the net, it's from 1966) - On the antiquity of melanoma. NCursework07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. Only suggestion would be an explanation of the difference between "primary" and "secondary" prevention (avoidance and vigilance?) - when I tried to look it up I discovered our prevention article is quite poor. Opabinia regalis20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I really can't see why do we need this primary-secondary section names, without these the prevention section would be total too. Anyway I can put avoidance and vigilance next to the primary and secondary words. NCursework20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are "avoidance" and "vigilance" really good restatements of the meanings? That was my guess from the context, but I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about medical usage than I am. I'd agree that the distinction isn't critical to the section's flow. Opabinia regalis04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of emphasis on sun damage and sunburn as risk factors, but most people have had a peeling sunburn at some point in their lives - maybe flesh out the statistics on this, or find some relative-risk data?
I found a reference for this sentence: "Occasional extreme sun exposure (resulting in "sunburn") is causally related to melanoma." The reference is a study: Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Hope it will be enough. :) NCursework18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that someone's going to read the article and think "Holy crap! I had a sunburn once; now I'm going to get skin cancer and die!" Is there some data to the effect of "x level of exposure to UV radiation increases melanoma risk by y%"?
I can't get the full text, but the abstract looks pretty statistical for reassuring the common hypochondriac. On the other hand, it's not Wikipedia's job to reassure hypochondriacs, so I don't think this is too critical. Opabinia regalis04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is well-referenced, but there's a few statements in the epidemiology section especially that don't have citations - like the "Australia" data and the "British study".
I wonder if it's possible to get a slide of normal tissue for comparison? (Also, am I right in reading the image descriptions that these are all the same case?) Opabinia regalis20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This radiation causes errors in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of cells, making them go through mitosis (cell division) at an unhealthy rate. " -- Not very clear. I assume the increased mitosis rate thing refers to inappropriate cell division after the tumor has formed, but the sentence implies that radiation damage itself accelerates mitosis rates, which as far as I know is not correct. It should be explicitly stated that radiation damage induces mutations, which can accumulate as cell division proceeds to create inappropriately-dividing cancerous cells.
Is the something about melanoma metastases specifically that makes them more difficult to treat? Are they just difficult to detect, or are they more dangerous in some way than metastases from other types of cancers?
To me it sounds like the article is saying metastases of melanoma specifically are more deadly than metastases of other cancers. Is that the case? (In either case, it's not critical but it might be interesting to see comparisons in prevalence and survival rates to other common cancers.) Opabinia regalis15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some more info on familial melanoma and genetics of melanoma is probably needed. I suppose there has been some recent research in this area that is not fully reflected in the article. Kpjas18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs expansion; it's pretty skimpy at the moment. At least it should mention that the trinucleotide repeat leads to a polyglutamine region in the huntingtin protein; the prevalence of the disease; the most common/characteristic symptoms; and the fact that it is not curable.
Given the content, "Genetics" seems like it would logically precede "Pathophysiology" and possibly even "Diagnosis". The fact that children of HD sufferers are at risk of having HD doesn't really have context until the genetic explanation. Also, there's some redundancy between "Genetics" and "Pathophysiology" that should be resolved - both mention chromosome 4, for example.
Both "Genetics" and "Pathophysiology" could use some writing tweaks for clarity:
"loss of medium spiny neurons, a GABAergic result" -- contextless without at minimum a wikilink to GABA
"Genetically, huntingtin is found on chromosome 4, as are CAG repeats." -- well, I would hope the CAG repeats are on the same chromosome as the gene they're in. Unless you mean that CAG repeats also occur in other genes on chromosome 4? (That would be interesting, but I've never heard it before.)
"can lead to dysfunction of the proteosome system. This mitochondrial dysfunction... "-- Besides the typo ("proteasome"), the use of "this" isn't terribly clear. Does the aggregation have effects on both the proteasome and the mitochondria, or is the proteasomal deficiency the direct cause of mitochondrial dysfunction? If so, what is the mechanism?
There's mention of the "nanotube" idea but no discussion of amyloid itself - this would be a good connection to make with other protein misfolding diseases.
The "Genetics" section mentions that repeat number becomes unstable after 35 repeats and causes disease after 40. It should either be briefly explained why the DNA replication machinery has difficulty with repetitive sequences, or at least wikilink to DNA replication so readers can learn about it there.
It would be interesting to expand on the age-of-onset phenomenon, which I think is a matter of interest in popular descriptions of the disease. IIRC it has been suggested that the "sharp cutoff" in number of repeats needed to create disease is an effect of human lifespan - ie 30 repeats don't cause disease because the aggregation is slow enough that the person dies before it has a neurodegenerative effect. Unfortunately I can't find the paper I'm thinking of, but here is a related paper that expands on the biophysical origins of the effect.
The "Others" section under management is very listy.
The "Epidemiology" section could use some expansion if the data is available. Is it more prevalent in certain populations or ethnic groups? The prevalence statement also needs a citation, and there are weasel words in the ethics section.
Nice, relatively concise article. I think it could use another pass to reduce jargon so that non-biologists / doctors are better able to understand it. But I would also like to see more references, especially peer-reviewed sources (journals/books are forever, web sites come and go). Satyrium01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
archived discussion
I'm trying to get the article featured. I'm going to fix all {{fact}}'s, and copyedit any sloppy sections. What is the article missing? What needs to go? Are there any stubbish sections to address? Thanks. -- Selmo(talk)19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article, thanks to User:AnonEMouse, is well sourced and written. I would like to see this article become a featured article (or at least a "Good Article"). Therefore I am soliciting comments as to what needs to be done in order to get to that point. Any constructive feedback is appreciated. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mailer_diablo! I have gone through and have done the following: expanded the lead paragraph, removed duplicate links, added the {{persondata}} template, added the non-breaking spaces between the number and measurement, fixed the headings, added footnotes and copyedited. (Obviously, a second pair of eyes wouldn't hurt.) I didn't put a caption on the picture because the picture is in the infobox and it's clearly an image of the subject in question. Also, all the information we can find is already in the article, so unless there are new developments with this performer, then we can't expand it any further. If there are any other comments, questions, or concerns regarding the article, feel free to make them! Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A word to the wise, poor Joe: YOU SEEM OBSESSED, JOE, WITH THE WORD "PORNOGRAPHIC," WHICH YOU USE SO REDUNDANTLY AS TO BE ABSURD.
YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY OUT TO SMEAR THIS GIRL IN THE WAY YOU HAVE REWRITTEN THE LEAD. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.
... In addition, Joe Beaudoin, who has been obsessed with this article for some time and loves to use the word pornography, has now put false information into the lead which he keeps reinserting. Vicca retired from porn movies in 2000. Poor Joe has her making movies with Nikita until 2002. Totally wrong.
UPDATE: I see that Joe has removed some comments here, from me and another writer.. THAT is vandalism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.88.92 (talk • contribs) 14 August, 2006.
You sir are mistaken, as I haven't removed any comments from here. Also, pornography was her profession, so I'm not going to sugarcoat it with politically correct terminology or bloated subjective terms like "porn star". Now, maybe I added one too many instances of "pornographic' in the lead paragraph, but you could have easily pointed this out without the personal attacks against my person. Clearly, it is you who belive you have ownership of the article, and belive that you do not have to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. (For instance, your unwillingness to help us in providing us your sources for the article prior to User:AnonEMouse's assistance in getting it sourced.) I am merely trying to develop the articles as I see them, which is something I am not ashamed of. Now, if you have any other concerns, please direct them at the Vicca talk page. Thank you for your comments. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?07:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts...
The extra bold for her stage names feels like overkill...
especially given the glaring absence of her real name. ("Vicca" sounds like a pseudonym, and surely she had a family name at some point.)
Her notability seems suspect to me. The AVN Award, frankly, is the only really solid evidence of notability, IMO. (The fact that her films are notable doesn't automatically mean that she is notable.) This is part of a larger concern I have: there's really not that much material here. What's the goal of this peer review? GA status? You're probably there. FA status? There's simply not enough material of note.
"...won the 2000 Hot d'Or as Best American Movie at the Cannes Film Festival." This makes it sound as though the Hot d'Or is awarded by the Cannes Film Festival. My understanding is that it is announced at the same time as the Cannes Film Festival, in order to capitalize on the CFF's media coverage, but is not affiliated with it. This is like saying that Halle Berry proudly accepted her Razzie at the Academy Awards... technically true, but unacceptably misleading to anyone not familiar with the award. Peirigill20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is GA status at best. FA is unattainable for this article at this point. I did go ahead and remove the bolding of the additional stage names. I'll also clear up the Hot d'Or reference. Thanks for the feedback Peirigill! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has undergone dramatic improvement in the last two months or so, and I'm sort of stuck on how to improve it further. I suspect there's a need for a little more history and more economy, but I'm not sure - and beyond that, I'm really not sure. There's a lot of problems in working out what belongs here given its relationship to Toronto. Anyways, I want to keep pushing it up to at least good status, so I really appreciate any comments. I took it past Requests for Feedback, but what I got there was that it looked pretty decent, a few minor points I worked on were gained. So I'm trying it here. I would really appreciate any feedback I can get.
WilyD18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed. Six months or so ago, this article was really quite poor, notable mainly for linkspam and reversion wars. I commend the editors who have put the time and effort necessary to bring it to this level. I am going to do some very minor copyediting, rather than list comments on wording and sentence structure here (revert anything objectionable). Other than that, my only comments are:
- Some thought might be given to making the images somewhat larger.
- The Toronto Zoo is one of Scarborough's major attractions. Too bad the image used in this article is of the zoo's admission booths. I understand the problem, though -- I couldn't locate a better image here on in the Commons. You may wish to consider posting over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto to see if anyone can upload some better images.
- I found the reference to Canada Post in the lead paragraph to be odd. Such a trivial piece of information for the opening paragraph. Moreover, it's hardly unique to Scarborough -- Canada Post quite often uses names of former municipalities (i.e. Kanata) or even areas that were never separate municipalities (i.e Downsview) for postal addresses. Since it's an administrative practice of Canada Post throughout the country, and has nothing to do with Scarborough per se, it seems unusual to give it such prominence in the article. If the consensus is to retain the information in the lead paragraph, however, then thought should be given to rewording it because it is somewhat unclear (perhaps "..., and the name continues to be used for postal addresses.").
- The lead paragraph requires some indication of why Scarborough is notable or interesting. Something like "Scarborough is known for its multicultural character, and is said to be the greenest and leafiest part of Toronto" (referencing information detailed later in the article). Otherwhise, an opening para. that focuses solely on amalgamation and Scarborough's boundaries is somewhat bland. Skeezix100020:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Okay, thanks for the tips. As far as photos go, I agree it's not the best Zoo picture. Getting good pictures is likely to be nontrivial, since the Zoo admission price isn't chump change. I may have some old ones somewhere. But that'll take time to address.
-I share your sentiment about the Canada post reference a bit. I think it may be there more because it's unclear where else to put it - I would welcome suggestions. Perhaps it can be dropped altogether, but even though this doesn't make it unique to Canadian communities, it sheds light on an apparent elevated status of community that Scarborough gets - even if many others do to.
-As for the blandness of the opening, I will admit it has been left essentially untouched during the recent revisions of the articles, and could use some reworking. Thanks
-On the issue of image size - I'm not sure if there's a good way to work with different displays. All the images are just thumb with no size specified - I had hoped that this would lead to a semi-smart display pattern - am I nuts? is there a good way to do it, or just guess? WilyD01:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is certainly alot better than it used to be. However, it reads a little bit like a travelogue, ie. it's kind of bland. There is no real discussion of the urban and social problems that occur in Scarborough. I also note that the article history shows there is still an apologist for the article still at work, namely User:Dscarborough, who still persists in removing anything that he perceives as a negative comment. Until that stops the article will lack balance. --Bombycil23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what kind of discussion you're looking for - one of the real problems I find myself in continuously in this article is that with Scarborough as a community in Toronto, things that affect Scarborough in a way un-unique from how they affect Toronto are hard to work with - I never have any idea of how deep to go into them, whether to just link to the Toronto discussion or what.
Specific issues that need to be mentioned. I don't think it matters whether these problems are specific to Scarborough or not. They still affect the area and so they should be discussed:
gang related crime, eg. Malvern problems (can be moved to history if necessary)
concentration of immigrant communities within Scarborough
marijuana grow-ops that plague certain neighbourhoods
economic disinvestment in the Warden/Kennedy corridors
As for D, I'm not sure here whether your complaint is fair. Every piece of content he or she has wanted removed was seperately argued against by either myself or User:Mindmatrix. Beyond that, the rest of the content D was opposed to remains in the article. WilyD16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph should be reworded as per Skeezix makes much sense. To Bobmbycil; WilyD and Mindmatrix have endeavoured to competently review every disagreement, and the article is fair and balanced. In fact, if you wanted to list the crime data per police division, that should be done on the larger Toronto page (Toronoto Neighbourhoods?), and you might actually be surprised that '42 Division whrere Malvern is located in, is on a per capita basis, amongst the safest divisions in the entire city' - former 42 Division Sargent Tony Warr. I could call Tony and ask him to email you a direct quote if you would like. Dscarborough20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
.[reply]
malvern gangs are sort of notorious throughout toronto, (at least amongst people i know) so perhaps they should have some mention
I am aiming to make this into a featured article, so advice is appreciated. I've started trying to rewrite it, but there are some problems. Any help is appreciated. --TheM62Manchester11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first thing we should do is get rid of the fair use images, and then I think we should get rid of the timeline, as it's not that informative and takes up space. --ApolloBoy19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but I think we should delete it as it's practically redundant. Awards can be mentioned in the main article (i.e. "The Tercel won Award A from 1988-1993). --ApolloBoy22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent much time crafting this article together but feel that it can be improved upon even further.. I believe that, for the channel of SciFi, it has been something comparable to monumental in the shape of things and to this day: we still have those very marathons. I'd really appreciate advice and goals to aim for as to how this article can be strengthened for Good article nomination as well as possibly beyond. With work, I do believe this can be attained. DrWho4210:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a section or corresponding sections focusing in on the shows featured on each theme? I.e. Creatureland, &c. DrWho4209:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially want opinions on references and neutrality (mainly looking at the animal welfare aspect). English is not my native language, so a critical look at spelling and grammar is also appreciated. Have done a lot of work on the article, and it is currently the selected article on the Cetaceans portal. I hope to get it to "Good Article" status at least. BabyNuke20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a quick copyedit, but it could do with another pass as I mainly removed redundancy rather than rewriting.
It's let down badly by lack of inline citation - with a topic like this inline citations help counter arguments of bias (and make you think about the statements you make)
Try to avoid 'it is claimed','some people say', 'this is disputed' etc. - give specific examples or don't include the claims.
Some defense of dolphinariums by owners or organizations (if there is any) may help balance the article.
The "suicide" section is very POV at the moment - I'd try to decribe the actions of the dolphin without attributing the action directly (unless you have reliable quotable sources to back up the claims)
You should standardize on a capitalization scheme for the common names of the species - Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans probably has a policy on this.
This is my first article here on Wikipedia and wanted to know if it is decent and what could be written better about it. All positive critique is welcome and I appreciate any feedback.
This article has recently passed GA-status but I still think it has some kinks that need to be worked out. I would love to hear some outside opinions on how this can be worked towards a featured article. For an archived peer review, see Archive 1. Sportskido817:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This poor, lonely Peer Review looks like it needs some love. I've noticed some things that might need fixing:
The lead does not state when the franchise changed its name from the Highlanders to the Yankees. It also does not explain the wild card very well (for the non-baseball-savvy), or wikilink an article (not sure if there is one). Done
Known as the Western League until 1899, the AL carried over five of its previous locations and added teams in three East Coast cities, including Baltimore, Maryland. This sentence is a bit unclear. Done
The "Franchise history" section needs some citations. It is also far too long...essentially a copy of the article History of the New York Yankees. I think a large majority of the section can be cut, since one click leads the reader to the same information.
New Owners, A New Home, and a New Name (1913-1922): Has an awful lot of newspaper headlines and specific instances where the word "Yankee" appeared in the media, most of which could be lost without impact to the article. Also, the paragraph on the "NY" logo could go, just leaving the note about the officiality of the franchise names.
The Ruth and Gehrig era and the Stadium (1923-1935): The second-to-last paragraph can be taken out completely.
The DiMaggio era (1936-1951): DiMaggio's hitting streak can be reduced to one or two sentences from the three paragraphs it currently holds.
I'm not sure about the fair use rationale for Image:TorrePoster.PNG in the context of this article. It's ok for now, but it might be brought up as a point of contention at WP:FAC.
The New Yankee Stadium needs a citation or two. An image of construction or an artists's rendition of the future statium would be great.
In Design, the note about the Knicks is probably not needed.
They are also one of the few teams in Major League Baseball to shun the trend of creating a "third jersey". What is a third jersey?
Not sure if the bit about the near-uniform change in 1974 warrants inclusion.
in the dawn of their new dynasty quite over-dramatic, no?
Mention of "Freddy" and "The Bleacher Creatures" should be in terms of one or two sentences, not several paragraphs.
In general, more references all around
Again, these are all just suggestions, so ignore anything you think is unreasonable. I just hate to see articles go this long on Peer Review without so much as a peep. Feel free to contact me here or on my talk page if you have questions/comments. -RunningOnBrains11:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review this. I agree with most of your points and I'll try to fix most of them at some point. Sportskido801:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a timeline of archaeology, designed to replace the List of years in archaeology page. The list of years page seemed to result in lots of pages with little content, when an interested party (such as myself) wanted as much info as possible on one page for quick browsing and searching. Essentially, I'm taking the data in each single year page and compiled them into decades. I've only completed years 2000 through 2006 and wanted to stop for a peer review and suggestions prior to completing the other 200+ years.
I'm afraid that the set up and layout of the Timeline of archaeology, 2000s page (one of the many children pages that will be created) lends towards a very large table of contents before any actual data shows up, and was also wondering what a better solution might be.
BakerQ16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this article to be reviewed as I am trying to get it to featured articles status. It is already currently a good article. When I nominated the article for featured status, it was rejected because it was too "list centric,", "cuttered," it didn't, "give any sense of what's notable about it," and that it, "needs more sources other than Newshounds itself and the official site." (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newshounds) I think I've sorted all of this is now, however I am having difficulty finding any reviews. As far as I'm aware, finding reviews for webcomics is difficult.
Main areas that need reviewing are the introduction, the characters, and sources for reviews of webcomics, if there are any.
If you need to find out anything else about Newshounds, there is the website newshounds.com and other Newshounds articles, which can be accessed from the the template at the bottom of the article. ISD13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing this article needs is just to be written better. It seems hard to understand for someone (like me) who's never heard of the comic before. Some sentences that need work--
British spelling on some words ("satirises", "realised") despite this apparently being an American subject.
"possibly based on San Francisco" -- How is this indicated?
"they are very political" -- They are political? What does this mean?
"There are also some minor characters have returning roles in KPET stories. " Missing a word. Better yet, chop off the first three.
No indication of readership level or popularity of the strip. Has it been mentioned in off-line sources? This is probably the biggest issue I have.
When this article recently achieved GA status, it was recommended that it be peer reviewed. I would mainly ask about how the article reads, and what needs to be added for FA status. Thanks! Judgesurreal77704:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the Gameplay section, and plan on doing so with the Plot section as well. I finally found a hardcopy of the US instruction booklet for any needed references. I'll try to get this done so we can determine how the prose flows. ~ Hibana04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a peer review for this article as I feel that it has reached a sufficently stable point in its life style, although only a few editors have contributed content and comment (both positive and negative) thus far.GiollaUidir01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sections are far too short to merit their own section headers. Three of them are only one paragraph long. You don't need a TOC for an article of this length.
The paragraphs are not organized well. You have paragraphs consisting of a single sentence, for example. Each paragraph should introduce an assertion in a topic sentence and then expand or back up that assertion. I'd recommend removing your section headers and replacing them with topic sentences. Replace "Imprisonment(1976-1986)" with "During her incarceration between 1976 and 1988, Farrell agitated for prisoners' rights" (or maybe something a little more NPOV).
If you do keep the section headers (which I don't recommend), make the format consistent. Some have a space before the parenthetical dates and some don't.
Per WP:MOS, footnotes should go after the comma or period, not before.
In general, you've done a pretty good job of keeping NPOV, but double-check distinctions between "kill" and "murder," and consider whether your presentation at any point could be seen as favoring a pro-Republican or anti-Republican stance. On a topic as contentious as the IRA, it's especially important to avoid even the appearance of bias.
The sentences run on too long. The prose needs to be tightened throughout. Both of these, I suspect, result from the conversation style of the prose. A conversational style isn't necessarily bad, but try to keep it in check.
Avoid parenthetical expressions when possible. They disrupt flow. If the information is really important, discuss it in a separate sentence or paragraph.
Don't assume I know the context. Maybe I'm from another part of the world and barely know where Ireland is on a map, let along the history of conflict. Consider adding a "Historical background" section that briefly and VERY neutrally summarizes the IRA and Operation Flavius.
LEDE
The first sentence is far too long. It should say who she was and why she was notable, but I shouldn't run out of breath reading it. The phrase "at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea" in particular doesn't belong in the first sentence. I'd chop this into two, maybe even three sentences.
She is, she is, she was... This repeated used of the verb "to be" makes for a passive writing style. Instead of "She is one of the subjects of the Irish rebel song Gibraltar Three," how about "She helped inspire the Irish rebel song 'Gibraltar Three'"? Instead of "she was the leader of the women prisoners in Armagh Women's Prison," how about "she led the inmates in Armagh Women's Prison"? ("Women prisoners" is redundant, since you're about to specify "Armagh Women's Prison.")
"During the late 1970s - mid 1980s" reads awkwardly. Can you give exact or approximate dates instead, like "From 1978 through 1986" or "From approximately 1978 through 1986"?
EARLY LIFE
"Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland to an unremarkable middle class family": "unremarkable" feels POV. Either remove it or cite it.Rephrased 15/6/2007
"(although her grandfather was an IRA member during the Irish War of Independence)": in general, avoid parenthetical expressions (see how disruptive this is?) because they disrupt flow. If it's important, give it its own sentence or even paragraph. If it's not important, leave it out.
"she left school at eighteen to work in an Insurance Office." Is this really part of her "early life"? I expect "early life" to be about childhood, not young adulthood.
"About this time she met a Provisional IRA Volunteer called Bobby Storey who persuaded her to join the IRA." "About this time" is redundant; since you're telling the story in a linear order, I would have assumed "about this time" unless you told me otherwise. How did she meet him? Was she already politically active, or was he a chance acquaintance at work, for example? It's not clear whether her job is important to the Storey story. You've put them in the same paragraph, so the presumption would be that there is a connection. A few commas would help here. How about something like, "At a local shinty fanciers meeting, She met Bobby Storey, a Provisional IRA volunteer, who persuaded her to join the IRA"?
FIRST TERM
"On the 5th April, 1976 she and two others bombed the Conway Hotel, Dunmurry-it is believed it was an attempt to kill members of the Security Forces who frequented the hotel." Please use em-dashes, not hyphens, where appropriate. However, a dash isn't appropriate here. I'd recommend a semicolon, or better yet, breaking this into two separate sentences.
IMPRISONMENT
Don't assume I know what "O/C" or "H-block" means.
Be careful about NPOV here. This section portrays her as a noble crusader. There's also an argument to be made that conditions might have been appropriate, or that inmates aren't there to be coddled. (I'm not arguing for these positions, just pointing out that you seem to have presented a one-sided account.) Can you cite a third-party reference that evaluates the conditions of the prisons?
SECOND TERM
These sentences are packing too much information. Break the sentences up so that each sentence contains an easily digestible amount of information. Don't try to pack everything in at once. You won't run out of paper, and you'll make it a lot easier for the reader to continue reading. If it's vital to point out connections between information that you've conveyed in separate sentences, use a third sentence to do so. The three sentences in this paragraph/section should probably be more like eight.
It would help if you explained Operation Flavius rather than tucking it in as a parenthetical afterthought. Assume that I don't know anything about the IRA, let alone Operation Flavius, and tell me what I need to know.Done my best but someone else might want to have a look...
AFTERMATH
The first sentence shouldn't stand alone. It should be the topic sentence of a paragraph that summarizes the aftermath. You can provide details in subsequent paragraphs.
The prose can be tightened throughout the article, but several examples pop out in this paragraph:
"The deaths in Gibraltar resulted in a further spiral of violence." These words tell me the same thing. How about "Violence escalated following the deaths in Gibraltar, claiming at least five more lives"?Again, done my best but someone else might want to have a look...
"while preparing to mount an attack on members of the British Army." How about "while preparing to attack British soldiers"?
Done my best but someone else might want to have a look..."At a 1995 hearing to review the killings by The European Court of Human Rights it was decided by the court..." How about "The European Court of Human Rights reviewed the incident in 1995. The 10:9 majority found that the Gibraltar Three were unlawfully killed"?
For the avoidance of doubt, that was not their conclusion --Gibnews
The last three sentence/paragraphs should be combined into a single paragraph whose topic is jury verdicts.
"Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes blundered into the funeral cortege" stood out to me. It almost makes it sound like they were drunk.
The parenthetical "see Corporals killings" flows awkwardly. Either use summary style or integrate "Corporals killings" into the text.
I just finished a complete rewrite of the article on this really enigmatic star. I'm not an astronomer and I have read the sources through more or less carelessly--therefore the article may include self-contradictions (others than arising from conflicting papers) and misunderstandings. Plus the obligatory grammatical errors, of course. Any corrections are greatly appreciated!--JyriLtalk23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great article! I corrected a minor grammatical problem in the lead. I do think this could use a good once-over by someone who's not been involved with writing the text to tighten up some of the phrasing. I may have time to look at it more closely tomorrow.
Looking good, though the section about planet-swallowing could do with a description of the 1-planet model given in some of the references. There's also [6], which claims that the planet model has severe problems and can be ruled out. Chaos syndrome17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on this article for months, bringing it to GA status. I nominated it for FAC in November, but de-nominated it after a few days. It has changed quite a bit since its GA pass. I feel now with the additions I made to it for the initial FAC that it's cumbersome at 78k, though as thorough as possible.
The book is unique: it has been read by the majority of the English-speaking world and rates very highly on books of impact and importance, but lacks a large body of study outside of the legal and education fields. What has been written in these fields is primarily a study on its impact of the legal profession and guides on how to teach it.
On images: Harper Lee despises having her photo taken. She had some shots taken of her when the book was released, but there are no public domain photos of her. At one point, I had screen stills from the film, but they were taken out by another editor. What is the recommendation for including only book covers?
the article too is also very large, and may not conform to wikipedia's size guidelines, for information on how to write a featured article about a book check out Lord of the Rings and our policies on our article size
Yes, I recognize this. I'm asking for assistance in what to cut out, if anything. I have read all the featured article novels, and used them as guides in writing this article. But there is a point where TKaM becomes its own article, apart from the others. Because of the far-reaching impact this book has had, that it is Harper Lee's only novel and she is somewhat enigmatic about it, and because the film and play are so closely related to the book, the lore involving the novel is extensive. Unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, unfortunately, the subject doesn't lend itself into neater divisions as a trilogy does. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the images tend to be concentrated towards the latter parts of the article, perhaps more images of life in America at the time may help to provide more context for readers
I did some work on this article about a year ago. Much good work has been done since then. Here's my two-cents. Not for nothing, but I think that under 'Reception' both the impact on legal profession and race relation sections are places which should be trimmed. I think it would make more sense to place the impact on legal profession in the Atticus Finch article, as 99% of it revolves around him. Also, include a link to Atticus under 'See also.' Furthermore, I would remove the impact on race relation section altogether. Although I hate to do this for 2 reasons. 1) It removes your hard work 2) Implies that I'm racially insensitive--I think that this is a tenuous connection anyhow. It states as much in the article:
"The novel's release is so closely associated with the Civil Rights movement, many analyses of the book and biographies of Harper Lee include important moments in the movement, despite the fact that she had no direct involvement in any of them."
Yes, trimming parts to an article one has worked hard on to scour sources is difficult and I do it with some reservation. I will link to Atticus Finch - you are right to point that out. However, since the majority of written material on the novel is about Atticus in the legal profession, I thought it appropriate to give that material weight in the article. I have to think about that.
The second point is also difficult for me to consider. The novel's first impact was on race relations. Even though it is seen as a bit outdated for many in the field of race relations, in the context of its history, it was quite influential. I have to admit I don't understand your point about the tenuous connection. Are you saying it's not strong enough to be included in the article?
Regarding Atticus, I think there is a certain point where one article becomes too long and needs to separate. I think this is normal and a good thing. Take for instance a honey bee hive, they get too big and one queen bee leaves the other with a bunch of other bees. When I read the legal profession section, all I see it being about is Atticus. This makes a fortunate breaking point as you can pretty much cut/paste it into the Atticus article. I wouldn't be surprised if someone at a later date makes Atticus a FA--he's certainly notable enough. Now in regards to the race relation and tenuous connection, first you place emphasis on the children in the movie. This almost seems as though it could go in the article on the film. I suppose my main argument with the tenuous nature of the material is that I have a problem with emphasizing an impact that isn't necessarily the main focus of the book. As far as I can tell Lee didn't write it as a civil rights movement book, per se. As noted above in the article, the gay community has found resonance in TKAM. However, just because a group finds resonance doesn't necessarily mean one must include a considerable section on it. Granted, this may be a weak argument on my part.
One other section that I think you should take a second look at is the Style section. I'm typically not too big of a fan of the Style/Themes sections of articles on books, simply because I think they tend to read into aspects of the book way too far and are more interpretative. However, I think the Theme section is well done in this article and should be left. I think the style could be trimmed back. I'm not sure that sections devoted to irony, parody, satire, and legal allusions are needed. I think that if you cut these back it would be a good place to trim the article. Additionally, it would solve a little bit of the problem with that insanely large table of contents. One thing I would like to mention however is that I think it is good to keep that legal allusion with the opening quote. I think that is significant, albeit interpretative. Best Wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disagreement whether or not this list, which is one of my favorite lists, should contain all Mario characters and species, or just distinct characters with proper names. (AKA, Goombella from Paper Mario 2, but not a Goomba.) For the longest time it's been the former, but someone insists it be the other way. I thought that was a pretty silly idea, because then that removed about half the list and didn't seem to do anything other than remove anything.
As of right now I've just seen this one person who thinks this way, but there is still a disagreement. I wanted to bring this up.
While grammatical purity might require that a list of "characters" contain only distinguishable individuals and not collectives, it seems obvious that the list itself is much more useful with species included. I'd be really surprised to see such a list and not find "Goomba", for example. The distinct-characters suggestion also introduces ambiguity in cases like "Bigger Boo" where there are multiple such characters, but the name denotes a single boss. Opabinia regalis02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger Boo is a different entity from Big Boo, King Boo and Atomic Boo.
As much a character as Goombella, Koopa Troopa, Blooper, Bob-omb, etc. Just because it says "List of Mario Characters" doesn't mean you cant just exclude basic enemies. They're characters too. So far, it still looks like you're the only one who thinks otherwise... Toastypk05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Opabinia regalis completely. A character, eve as insignificant as "henchman", is a character. Especially since some of these 'insignificant' species-characters are standards and even have wiki pages of their own (like the Goomba). Each entity in the Mario world would be a character you'd encounter. I say keep them all. --BakerQ18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does having an article make you a character? The Goomba page is for the species. They don't refer to the Goomba as a single entity, they refer to a Goomba as any entity, regardless of random Goombas or characters. - A Link to the Past(talk)22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it did. The fact remains, however, that I feel that Goombas are characters in the game, even if there are an infinite supply of them. They may not be as notable of a character as Bowser, but a character nonetheless, and I'd be surprised not to find them in a list of Mario characters. --BakerQ23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Goomba is a group of Goombas who may or may not be characters. If the Goomba were the most popular thing ever, it would still not be a character. Do we consider Humans to be a character in Mario games? Do we consider Hylians in the Zelda games to be a character? - A Link to the Past(talk)00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If all the humans looked exactly the same and were nearly clones of each other, yes. Just for example's sake, in a similar Zelda II list there would be (if I can recall) about 10 human characters: fat man, thin woman in red, old woman in orange, swordsman, etc, etc. It seems to me that a key difference here is that in the instruction manuals they were referred to as Goombas, not goombas. In my mind, that helps (not necessarily proves, but helps) establish them as characters. --BakerQ01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an absurd stretch. A species containing random beings counts as a character because the name is capitalized? Well, I say the Lens of Truth is a character because it's capitalized. Just because it's more extreme than yours does not mean that yours is not an extreme stretch. A species is never considered a character. Additionally, they do not look the same - Para-goombas, mini goombas, mega goombas, King Goomba, Red Goomba, Blue Goomba, etc. - A Link to the Past(talk)03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I didn't say it confirms, I said that it helps, not proves. The fact remains that you are so far the only one who feels the entries should be removed, while others feel strongly that they should remain. If you still feel that they're given too much or too little credit, I'd suggest editing the list to denote Major and Minor characters, or noting the Goombas (et al) as a Species. A parenthetical designation between the name and description, I think, should sufficiently resolve the conflict:
Goomba (or Chibibo) — [Species] - the very first enemy that appears in Super Mario Bros. and has appeared in most of Mario's games since.
Yes! This is not about Mario species, and I have constantly gotten arguments that they are "surprised to not see Goomba", as if because people expect him to be there, that he should be there. A comprehensive list is not necessarily long. Putting species in a character article makes as much sense as putting characters in an item article. - A Link to the Past(talk)19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People expect to see it there because most people consider it a character. The consensus swings both ways: if you were the only person stating that he was a transvestite and everyone else says otherwise, why should your opinion be taken fact? You are the only person who feels that they should not show up on the list. We (in so far as this debate has shown includes everyone else in the world) believe that a Mario Character includes every creature in the game series.--BakerQ19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Goomba = character is no more true than Stephen Colbert = transvestite.
You have failed to give me a single legitimate reason why a Goomba is a character, while a human is not. And the dictionary gives me one ultimate reason: "A person portrayed in an artistic piece, such as a drama or novel." A person, not people. - A Link to the Past(talk)06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betraying my geekery here, but in the original Transformers series there were a group of Decepticons called the Insecticons. There were three of them, Bombshell, Kickback and Shapnel. Beyond that, there were other Transformers such as Wreckgar (a Junkion), Scourge, Quintessons, Sharkticons. In the fiction around these characters, there were thousands of them, nearly identical clones of each other, yet they were all called by that same first name. By your logic, they're not characters in the Transformers world?
I'm at an impasse here. You have also failed to show me (or anyone else) a single valid reason why all those list entries should be removed. I say we leave them there, recognize your dissention on the talk page and drop it. --BakerQ15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that these are not clones. They are a species. There is not a species of Wreckgars, there are "nearly identical clones of eachother". Goombas are a collection of characters and non-characters, while Wreckgars are not a species of characters and non-characters. - A Link to the Past(talk)18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew moments after posting that that that would be the angle you'd attack from because Wreckgar was the weakest part of my argument. How about Sharkticon? Or Bombshell, Kickback and Shrapnel? Are they not characters?
Look, I'm really done trying to find a happy medium here, you're not accepting any compromises offered here and the only reason you're dragging this out is that you know that if it came down to a vote right now the results would be one to many. It remains that you are the only one who feels this way. --BakerQ17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise? How is "do all of what we want and nothing of what you want" any sort of a compromise? I wouldn't agree to leave species in an article that isn't about species any more than I would agree to putting the Super Mushroom on that list. It has syes, so why not? - A Link to the Past(talk)20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two compomises have been issued: rename the list to Mario series Characters and Species, or include a note beside each relevant entry denoting it as a species. Those are compromises because you want to make changes to the list and no one else does. You have yet to yield in any way to anything besides outright removal of the entries. In light of the circumstances, request denied. --BakerQ01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just make TWO articles. You know, instead of cluttering up one list for the sake of making it long and for no other reason than to make it long, we could have TWO lists and include a note on the characters page acknowledging it. Strong object to calling a species a character. - A Link to the Past(talk)02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this on my watch page, but I've got doubts that the vote's going to change much. So far we're at 3 to 1. --BakerQ17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I seem to have forgotten that species should be called a character solely because they're notable and people expect them to be on the list. Does that mean that we should take off all unpopular enemies? Because if you accept Goomba, logically, you have to accept every single variant of the Goomba. - A Link to the Past(talk)23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Wikipedia encourages users to keep lists small if possible. The best thing for Wikipedia is to make two separate lists. Currently, the list is at 99kb, and I have no doubts that it couldn't break 150k. - A Link to the Past(talk)02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit offtopic: a short introduction and a link to the (or a) mario article would be nice for those not so familiar with mario. --WS22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of splitting the article from a 124kb article to one 69kb species article and a 53kb characters article.
As being long does not make an article comprehensive, I will not revert it back without a very good reason. Having two articles accomplishes the same as having one extremely long article, but is more convenient for people. - A Link to the Past(talk)03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the split given the history of this discussion. If any other user agrees with A Link to the Past about the split, I won't revert them. Yowee04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said a good reason. People wanting an article to be of poor quality is a pretty poor reason. It is a styling guideline that it should NOT be that much more than 60kb, let alone 124kb. You can revert it to make it long, and if it stays reverted, this article has literally no chance of being featured. - A Link to the Past(talk)04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish. Rather than let another user revert the changes for you, which demonstrates support of your reason, you are free to revert it yourself. Yowee04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the requests for peer review have been satisified as pertaining to the original conflict. I move that the peer review request be removed and this dialogue be archived as there are now two places to discuss this page. --BakerQ13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went and asked a couple friends their opinion on the matter (Zscout and Andrevan), they seem to agree that it's completely pointless to make the list as long as it is when there is a very simple way to make it shorter and have as much content as it would as one list. - A Link to the Past(talk)16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that statement, are we to assume that you now speak for three? Should I include the people in my household as my votes as well? You're still the only one voting for the removal of the entries and have, despite votes and reverts, continued to alter the page as you and only you see fit. --BakerQ16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course. Except - THIS ISN'T A VOTE. This is a PEER REVIEW. The difference between my friends and your pets are that they have an opinion on the matter and they are Wikipedians (admins no less). And will you stop calling them freaking removals? I AM NOT REMOVING THEM. How is moving them REMOVING? Christ, stop making it seem like I'm doing damage to an article by reducing its size! And wait, are you honestly saying that I am doing this as I see fit?! For the love of Christ, did you ever notice how I constantly repeated "style guidelines" and how I adhere to them? They specifically state that an article should not be THIS LONG! While you have yourself (Toasty has stated that he could go with a split) flat out refusing to give a reason why you prefer the article to be of poor quality, I have Wikipedia on my side, and I will continue to revert until you stop continuously ignoring what you don't want to exist. Did you know that when somebody asks you to prove your point, you cannot will it out of existence just so you don't have to strain yourself coming up with a reason why one bad article is better than two decent articles? - A Link to the Past(talk)16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm just wondering how much more enraged and aggitated you're going to get. Take note: every single ocmment you make that includes an insult has been and will continue to be flatly ignored. Communicate with civility and maturity and you'll find that I'm much more receptive.
That said, your intentions to remove entries are transparent. Yes, remove, as in "no longer here". (It is possible for things to be removed to another location.) I'll continue this debate on the articles talk page where it belongs. --BakerQ17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, splitting the article was the best thing to do. Even if there is nothing that prevents us from writing long lists, it is best to split it down in sub-lists when it becomes too large. Having an article with a size of over 100 kB is not very convenient, so splitting this into characters and species is a good alternative, and I think it should be kept that way. – Elisson•Talk20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this still needs a lot of work. Two concerns right off the bat:
Wikipedia:Summary style -> The three subarticles (origins, rituals and film) do deserve to be split from the main article, but there should still be a summary of the contents of each page in the main Santa Claus article. The standard Template:Main should be used rather than "See this page", as well.
One-sentence paragraphs and supershort sections, such as Santa Claus reindeers' name should be avoided through expansion or merging with other sections. --Amuck21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is repeating the above, it makes no sense to me to have a section heading for a section that only contains a link to another page, and it's becoming one of my pet peaves. :-) The reader shouldn't have to go to another page just to get information those topics. They should be summarized with a paragraph or two, and then if the readers wants to learn more they can click on a {{main}} article link.
I'd like to see some coverage of the supposed connection between the story of flying reindeers and the northern European shamanic ritual of eating red and white amanita muscaria mushroom.[7] Apparently these mushrooms are a favorite treat for reindeer.
OK, so I think this article (self-created and largely self-written) is fairly comprehensive; I think that it's basically been properly configured and referenced by inline citations, and I would really like to get any other feedback on it that anyone thinks might improve the article. Eventually, I'd like to nominate it for featured status. Also, is there anything else I could/should possibly put in the intro? It currently seems a little short to me. Thanks. Absecon 5916:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestions have now been largely attended to. Could anyone provide further feedback concerning what could or should be improved for this article before it might be nominated for featured status? Absecon 5915:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Old Request for Peer Review
Hi. This page has been largely self-created, and I'm wondering what anyone else can suggest to improve this article, besides the somewhat-obvious suggestion of "find more print sources of information." This is difficult, as the U.S. Mint in New Orleans has not been directly discussed much in writing. Much thanks for all feedback. Absecon 5900:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mention of Hurricane Katrina in the lead of the article is rather irrelevant; the lead generally sums up the entire article rather than presenting new ideas. Also, though it is rather difficult to correct, the article is simply just a history of the mint and then a long list of statistics of coinage (which should be properly referenced by using inline citations). AndyZ00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: (1) What exactly do you mean by the "inline citations"? (2) What else would you have in the article besides a history of the mint and the statistics of coinage? If I'm leaving out something you'd like to see, please let me know what you've got in mind. Absecon 5910:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to get this article to featured status, with help from two other editors. Until recently the article's talk page was empty, so I don't think this article has had the scrutiny needed. Is there anything significant missing? Anything that could be covered better? Anything confusing or not explained well enough? Any problems with grammar or style? Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. --Aude (talkcontribs) 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aude, I'm interested in helping with this one. I have not yet reviewed the article, but at this time my comment is that the intro needs a bit more context. I know this is basic, but I think the intro should give enough context that anyone in the world will have a full definition of the article's subject. I would suggest something like
"Banff National Park is a CanadianNational Park located in the Rocky Mountains. Established in 1885, it was the first area in Canada to be designated a national park. It is located in the province of Alberta, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, and includes the town of Banff. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles)
Previously: "Banff National Park is located in the Canadian Rockies, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, Alberta, and includes the town of Banff, Alberta. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles) and was the first national park created in Canada."
This includes links to Canada, Alberta, and Canadian National Parks, and gives the real basics to the reader that someone too familiar with the subject takes for granted.
I suggest to switch the order of the paragraphs in the intro. Start with the features, before you hit the reader with statistic data. "Towering", "scenic" and "enjoyed" aren't words I'd use in the intro of an encyclopedic article. Are all of the names in the "early history" that well known, that the reader will get the significance of their explorations just from the names? Or should they get explained? All those numbers, figures and sizes in the following chapter are well researched, but IMHO presented boring. No one expands a park to get it to a certain size, please explain the reasons: Which features were included, possibly why. --h-stt!?21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm biased, as I prefered Jasper ...[reply]
Jasper is more remote and has a lot less development and is altogether a wilder place for sure. Will try to reduce the promotional wording some.--MONGO21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like every time I look at this page, it gets bigger and more comprehensive. Having lived in the area for a few years now, I believe it to be comprehensive enough for improvement into a featured article. Cwolfsheep02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
I would like to see this article made a featured article at some point. I'm involved in the organization and am a former office-holder, though I believe I can still be objective in my editing. Any input people can give on how to make it better is appreciated!--Dave Boven21:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The material could stand to be cited. It's a new group, so its all probably in recent memory, but something concrete and standard would be good. Other than that, it looks like a nice article. Only one of the officers has a wikipedia article. It might help to shed more lite on the society if other members were profiled.--Forlornandshorn21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely do I find an article on a book this well written. It is quite comprehensive and references itself where necessary. Furthermore it is neutral and stable. I believe it shows Wikipedia at it's best. b_cubed06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content is mostly fine, but I think that the sections that interpret the book need references. A lot of them are fairly common knowledge but there are some that are more obscure. --Cherry blossom tree20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is too short, please expand. {{spoiler}} and related are a must. While lists in the character section are passable, the one in 'Allusions and references to actual history, geography and current science' needs to be changed into normal text, and the entire heading is too long. 'Cultural references' section should also be delisted. Finally, this needs many more inline citations, especially for significance. Plus those citations should be academic: such an important book has surely generated wealth of academic comments, those should be utilised.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hacking through this article that, when read, appeared to be written by a close friend of Rik Mayall's. It was more of a Lord Flashheart fan-club than an encyclopedic article. I am willing to work on it more i just don't know what to do next
(The Bread02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
My first instinct is that this is as good as a minor character's article can get, and a glance suggests it's quite good for its length. If you can find information on the origins of good ole' Flash, what inspired the writers, or what Mayall used as a basis for his performance, that'd be great. I doubt such material exist, but those are what I think would put more flesh on our understanding of the character. Good work!--Monocrat01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Submarine is a former featured article, but it has lost its status a few months ago. Since then I've made some major edits, mostly additions, to counter the problems stated in the FA removal. The context suggests this article deserves FA status, and I hope to improve it at least to the best of FA standarts. However, the views on required improvement can differ, and I'd like to get advice before making new major changes. The specific problems may be:
Length. The article is above average length, being about 67 kilobytes. In my personal opinion, this is justified by the subject being both highly technical and historical, and too complex to be covered in a short article. However, prior to further expansion, I'd appreciate comments on what sections might be removed or compressed, and how. Please don't suggest breaking it in subarticles; while there already are some, I'd prefer the subject to be mostly covered in a single article. I'd also appreciate opinions on whether increased length is justified.
Readability. While I tried to make the article well readable, I'm still not sure whether all sections can be understood by all readers. Anyone with a technical higher education should have no problems reading it, but there can be some hardships for people without it. Please read the article and note any sections or sentences that might be difficult to understand and should be explained.
Citations. My job is connected with design og submarines, and I wrote sections (in the first half of the article) mostly basing on first-hand knowledge, however inserting citations wherever I found some sources. There still may be a number of statements without sources stated, so any help with pointing them or, better, suggesting sources to mention, would improve the article.
The body of the article is quite good. The Achille's heel is the referencing. The refs should be in proper format, prefereably cite php, and you lots more footnotes. If you can do this, I'd then suggest resubmitting for FA. Rlevse12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has gone through a good amount of editing in the past year, and I think it may be getting close to Featured article status. I would like to know what may still need to be done to bring this article to FAC. Dr. Cash22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On just a cursory skim: the introduction is too short, see WP:LEAD; there are several more redlinks in the Culture and Economy sections then I'm comfortable with, stubs could be started for some of them; and at least one citation is marked as missing. -Fsotrain0922:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a twice-failed FAC. However I believe that the concerns that were raised during the FACs have been addressed. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a close look at this article and see if you can spot anything else that might hinder a third FAC attempt. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some notes — I wrote this while reading random parts of the article, so they're not in order:
The disambiguation link problem I mentioned in the FAC was not a reference to the OtherUses-style templates, which is fine; I was talking about wikilinks in the article text that lead to disambiguation pages. Check the links in the article and change any reroute link to disambiguation pages to the correct article.
I just went through nearly every wiki-link in the article and addressed the disambiguation links. So I think that's done. — RJH (talk)
The "Dimensions" section may be misnamed. As a layperson, I would assume that the dimensions of a star would be the radius, circumference, volume, etc. Is luminosity typically referred to as a dimension of a star or would "characteristic" be a better term?
I changed it to "Units of measurements". Sorry, I'm used to thinking of dimensions in terms other than length. — RJH (talk)
The "Dimensions" section is rather short - I would expect such a section to include information about typical or mean star sizes, but star size seems to be covered in a later section. Related information like this should be gathered in one place.
This section was deliberately intended to clarify the units of measurement before any discussion of star masses, radii, and so forth. I wanted to get that out of the way before hitting the heart of the article, so there would be no confusion. I'd really prefer that this not be all-encompassing section on star sizes. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Star formation occurs in molecular clouds, ... and then three sentences later: Star formation begins with gravitational instability inside a molecular cloud, ...
I tweaked the text slightly. Otherwise I'm unclear about the concern. The first was an introductory paragraph to the section. The second paragraph is the actual mechanics. What is preferable? — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now. It's a little jarring to the reader to encounter such a similar phrase that close together, as the reader may not realize that the introductory paragraph overlaps with the next section. Pagrashtak20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The measurement "Gyr" is used - clicking on this link takes me to the article on year. I can deduce that Gyr stands for gigayear, but the year article does not mention gigayear. This is more of a problem with the year article, but it still confuses the average reader who most likely has not encountered gigayears often.
The Gyr was removed yesterday. I have a problem with the use of the word billion, which has an ambiguity. But apparently that's not an issue for others. So the article just uses billion consistently now. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The duration that a star spends on the main sequence depends primarily on the amount of fuel it has to burn and the rate at which it burns that fuel. In other words, its mass and luminosity. - This sentence tells me thatm for stars, mass=amount of fuel. However, iron contributes to the mass of a star and is not fuel.
When the star is first formed, the iron content is negligible. Iron is created as the very last product of the life cycle, and only after the star has left the main sequence. So yes, the statement is true. I'm not clear why it is an issue. — RJH (talk)
Well really it's roughly the same amount of mass anyway, only converted into different elements. There is some mass loss due to the stellar wind, particularly in massive stars, and a tiny fraction of the overall mass is converted into energy. But I'm glad the rewording works for you. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The process of stars creating heavier metals seems to be covered twice.
Yes. I think it is appropriate that the "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" section also covers the specific nuclear reactions. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too crazy about covering it twice, but it may be the best way given the different treatments. This will probably be ok with the addition of a link, I'll look into that in a second. Pagrashtak20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mass can also be measured directly for stars in binary systems or through microlensing. - This sentence is a little confused.
This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past (User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!
We could improve the flow of the geography section. As it stands, there are a few short and/or irrelevant sentences which need to be expanded, clarified, and/or merged.
We should really state how often the lake stink phenomenon occurs, if possible. Cities closer to the lake probably enjoy the smell constantly, but in my experience Salt Lake City (more accurately, the suburb I live in) experiences this problem relatively infrequently, perhaps a few times a year. Currently, as well as before my edits, it sounds as if the city has an unpleasant odor all the time. I found a source.
The lake effect has a major impact on the climate,[8] and should be mentioned in the climate section. Right now it is only briefly touched upon in the sports and recreation section. Of course we have discussed this before, but I just wanted to mention that this info would be useful in this article as well as Great Salt Lake, I am not trying to nag by any means. :) Oops, I was using Firefox's Find feature, but I was not searching for the hyphenated lake-effect, so I missed that in the climate section.
I'll add a few citation-needed tags as necessary, and try to dig up some sources, but for now I'll just ask that sources be added for the population numbers in the lead. --Lethargy12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I wrote this a while ago. I think it is fairly comprehensive, well-referenced, well-written, etc., but would I think it would benefit if more people looked at it and/or commented on it. Thanks.--SB | T03:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"an American novel" - if it was specifically an example of "The American Novel" this might be worth stating, otherwise just "a novel" will do, maybe "a novel by American author, Philip José Farmer".
"but there is some dispute"..."the novel is infamous for its" - says who? These statements need citations.
The entire "Overview" section needs copyediting (it has a different style to the rest of the article) and references.
"limited to 200 copies signed by Farmer" could be rephrased to make clear whether only 200 copies of the run were signed, or whether the run consisted solely of 200 signed copies.
From a brief read - just a comment on the referencing and citations
Needs more inline citations particularly for the Criticism and legacy and Architect of India's constitution sections.
All of the current inline citations are to one online document and it would be better if the texts in Further Reading where referenced to assertions in the text.
Just had a glance at the article. My first comment is that the entire list "His Writings and Speeches" is too long. Why are some of them bolded and some not. Wouldn't it be better to move the complete list to a sub-article and just state the really important works here. And why not just add the link to this at the beginning of the section for anyone interested for complete text of the works. The individual links are very distracting. Will review the body of the text later. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The writings and speeches is the most important section. No one can decide which is the most important work. The objective here is not to rank order but to give a reader complete information. I can rank but that would be POV. Note that this is a biographical article and has little meaning if it does not even have a list of writings and speeches properly linked. If its too long, so be it. You can format it into a table of two coloums if you like. It will reduce the length to half. My idea is to later add a synopsis to each of the writings. Yeditor11:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1926, he became a nominated member of the Bombay Legislative Council, and led a satyagraha — non-violent protest and civil disobedience as pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi — in Madh to fight for the right "
Please get confirmed whether the referred place was "Madh" or "Mahad" (in marathi language 'महाड')[9],[10][11]
Please get confirmed spelling of a Princly states kings surname referred here in this article "gaekwad" (I do not know Gujarathi pronounciation but in Marathi pronounciation may be spelled "Gayakwad" 'गायकवाड')
"who is the chief architect of the Indian constitution. "
What is grammaticaly correct 'is or was' ?
Ambedkar's ancestors had for long been in the employ of the army of the British East India Company,
May be here author wants to reffer family's traditional occupation for certain generations.'employ or employment'
Name of 'Maharaja of Kolhapur' is not mentioned.
Positive aspects of his legacy has room for further coverage.In modern India his legacy has yeilded an acceptance for his social cause from entire political spectrum.
Positive successes of his legacy in upliftment of down troden communities has not been adequetly covered.
There is no mention or links to political aspects after him specialy so about Republican Party.
Primarily article seems ok.I do not have specific experties to confirm all facts and refferences.Sentences are lenghthy could have been devided in shorter ones for readers benefit.
'Vis s Vis Mahatma Gandhi's philosphy of decentralised and stronger local and rural democratic institutions, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar ensured a centralised stronger provincial and union democratic institutions and governments.'This was to ensure more equal treatment from local polity and avoid discreminations.
Article does not cover mainstream political thought that indian untouchability was different from the way west percives 'racism'.Many non-Indian scholors may be interested in understanding this aspect.
Connotation (meaning) of'Untouchable' may be different to readers of Non Indian background is it adequetly explained inthe article it-self.
Honestly, to tell you the truth, I think the article is an excellant. I think the article is fairly detailed and covers a nice range of topics. However, I also noticed that due to the large number of differant topics mentioned in this article, some were more detailed than others, perhaps you could balance it out a little more. Also, you should also add a History section to the article and possibly talk a little bit about how the government works if you want.Hope this helps. Socom4917:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough references and citations, and the ones that exist are not in the proper format (see Cite.php). That will keep it from FA. PDXblazers01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not one single footnote, full of external jumps that need to be footnotes, some sections are stubby, date linking are not in proper wiki format.Rlevse12:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No footnotes/references! Sections such as Media need to be expanded (and the main article of the section looks pretty large, so it shouldn't be a problem). Also there's a scary number of redlinks in Culture, and the section titles should only have their first letter capitalised, but I fixed that. CloudNine19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intending to put Scotland forward as a Featured Article Candidate sometime in the near future. The article has recently been improved and other Wikipedians have expressed an interest in getting this through FA. Any help with this would be welcome. This article was last peer reviewed in 2006 and has changed a lot since then. Lurker (said·done) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall very nicely done and well illustrated. A few comments from one read through: I have never seen footnotes in an infobox - it makes it even longer. Why are they here and not with other notes in the reflist below? It might be helpful to have the map higher in the article - those not familiar with the geography of Scotland might appreciate this. Modern History seems a bit thin after the 17th century and Highland clearances. More on the Industrial Revolution perhaps? In the Administrative subdivisions section, these sentences repeat information from the preceding section on politics and seem unnecessary: For the Scottish Parliament, there are 73 constituencies and eight regions. For the Parliament of the United Kingdom there are 59 constituencies. In the Law section, does the last sentence need to be its own paragraph? In Geology and geomorphology, Grampian Mountains is shown on the map, but not mentioned in the section. The Transport section has three one-sentence paragraphs. Ruhrfisch><>°°02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive article with lots of references; what could it use to be a Featured Article? I also wanted to know if summarizing the scientific studies and merging the conclusion with it (as done in User:Chaser/sandbox) would be the right direction to go? - RoyBoy80004:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on this article. Here are some more detailed comments for you:
NCI workshop
This section needs a bit more exposition (i.e. explaination of who the people are and which study is which). I know the lead does that as well, but there's enough different people and things that it can get confusing.
Added Melbye's name for Denmark study and name of presenter.
Pro-life bias, para 1
"These advocates rebut by stating that their ABC information is for the benefit of women's health and to provide informed consent, but they ignore potentially higher and more immediate health risks associated with pregnancy". Second clause seems to break NPOV without a citation; who says they ignore risks? I may have misinterpreted who "they" were, as it's not entirely clear from the passage.
Pretty sure I've seen it several times, can't find it so its gone. The following paragraph provides the important counter point anyway.
Scientific studies, para 1
"ABC studies have been conducted since 1957, [9] but this covers recent ABC research history". What does the "this" refer to? The article? If so, why doesn't the article cover the entire history of studies?
Yes the article. Provided rationale in article, also the entire history is not provided for length considerations.
Try making that explicit and see if you think it reads better, i.e. "...since 1957, but this article covers...". I find "this" generally needs to be followed by a noun indicating what in refer s to. --jwandersTalk20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added article, do you think adding section would clarify, as in "this article section" or even changing "article" to "section"? - RoyBoy80020:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific studies, para 2
Para should be made clearer and punctionation improved (e.g. "and a (95%...". Quote results briefly then focus on their meaning; details of confidence intervals can be left in that article.
Tweaked, hopefully enough. Disagree on confidence interval (CI), I've read the lead there and still don't understand what I've just read. A clear understanding is essential for a reader interpret the numerous numbers within the ABC article. Going to the CI article to understand CI is a significant interuption in reading flow of the ABC article.
The list in the middle of this section seems out of place.
Turned into a paragraph.
Melbye, para 3
Reference to oral contraceptives as "the pill" is unprofessional. Also the last sentence in this para appears to be editorialising; cite someone who brought up that point in the debate, if you can.
Hadn't considered that, changed. Also just recently added a link that discusses the issue of birth cohort adjustments for Melbye. - RoyBoy80021:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howe, para 2
Last sentence would read better as, "Eventually the Britain-based International Journal of Epidemiology published it in 1989."
Changed.
Response bias, para 1
"CJD" alluded to without prior description; grammar issue in third sentence;
Removed. Underreporting not overreporting is what is at issue for ABC.
Other comments
Very good lead.
Took a little negotiation and head scratching. I would prefer it be three paragraphs for aesthetics. (merge 1st and 2nd paragraphs) What do you think?
As mentioned above, footnotes-style would be nice; but as it's easier, coverting the lead footnotes to html style would suffice.
I'll do it over the next couple days.
Is "pro-lifer" an accepted term? Smacks of being unprofessional to me.
Changed.
I find I don't like in-text references (e.g. "The ongoing and incremental legal challenges to abortion by pro-life groups is documented in Frontline's The Last Abortion Clinic." or "See Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill by Chris Kahlenborn, MD (ISBN 0966977734) for an extended argument from the pro-life perspective."). I know of no guideline or policy against them though, so that might just be me ;-)
Changed the whole section to refs, but book mention is unchanged for now.
I'm not sure the Daling quote, though powerful, furthers the article.
I'd disagree, precisely because it is powerful. It serves as an authoritative reminder people on both sides of the political divide have played politics with this issue. That is an essential meme I want readers to take from the article.
Good job walking the NPOV line, especially considering the subject matter; I kept thinking the article was starting to lean one way or the other, but then something would always bring it back again.
Many thanks. Truly wonderful to hear that. I would humbly request you say exactly that on User:SOPHIA, User:Pro-Lick and User:Alienus talk pages. As they have helped fine tweak the weight of the article. Although as of now, it would appear they have all left Wikipedia, perhaps such a comment would encourage them to constructively rejoin the project.
I haven't examined any of the sources, which a FAC review would entail.
Heh, there are a bunch of 'em.
There are a lot of short paragraphs (i.e. <4 sentences). These will likely be a issue if you go to FAC.
I'd have to plead guilty on that... my 800x600 screen biases towards shorter paragraphs.
I didn't do an indepth comparison of the two versions, but at this point I'm not sure it added benefit of the Kchase version warrants the inventing of appendices on WP. I would say that the Scientific studies section there could be worked into the current article in order to provide a gentler introduction to the hardcore scientific debate that follows. --jwandersTalk
That could indeed work. Oh, and no need for indepth comparison, its essentially a pre-peer reviewed version with the scientific section summarized and made into an appendix. The thinking was the article flows nicely then gets interupted by a long hardcore science section. Making it an appendix could improve the flow. I'm not sold on the idea, so trying to get a consensus on the way to go. Now we have a third option! Are you always this good? :"D RoyBoy80001:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the article, particularly the "Scientific studies" section, which needs little if no work. My advice is minor:
The style of referencing should be standardized. Some references are given in a formal, APA style, while others are cited in the manner of web links.
The article would be serviced by thorough Wikification. Many concepts remain unlinked.
The article relies too heavily upon the "ABC" acronym. It should be substituted in some places for "abortion-breast cancer" to make the article seem more like an encyclopaedic in tone.
Done refs, may need some tweaking as I've changed the reference style from original examples. I'll have a look at Wikification and ABC issue tomorrow. Thanks. - RoyBoy80005:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind the acronym issue. The book I'm currently reading continuously refers to government agencies by this form of shorthand, so, really, I'm leaning toward thinking it's just my own preference. -Severa (!!!) 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While not essential to the article, as it is very informative as it is, images would definitely help toward FA:
Comparative charts or graphs to represent data from various studies.
A diagram to illustrate the process of cellular differentiation in the breast during early pregnancy. Perhaps with special emphasis on the difference between uninterrupted growth during full-term pregnancy and interruption via abortion.
I have given the article a copyedit - it already was a well-written article with nice layout, so there wasn't really much to do. One sentence, "While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." was confusing in a way that I could not rectify. There is no subject and I couldn't figure out what should be the subject. There are red links that either should have pages or should be explained, such as his positions. In any event, I assume that the references will be added shortly because, well, there aren't any. And that ain't cool as far as FAC goes, as you are well aware! But otherwise, wonderful job! InvictaHOG16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes actually I've still got a lot of info to add to the article. Your comment is right - I was writing in context of the partition of India, which happened 50 years after Khan's death and thus is not properly explained or directly relevant to this article. Thanks for your comments, but do check back in the coming weekend. Rama's arrow16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First para in lead states "His work gave rise to a new generation of Muslim intellectuals, professionals, politicians.." and the third paragraph again states "His political leadership would give direction to a rising class of Muslim intellectuals and politicians..". That is almost a repetition.
Why is Birth capitalised and death is not. Death anniversary is a red link. There is no need to link it.
Early life - Highly connected seems to be wrong. Maybe well connected could be used. "Associated" could also be used. "Connected" doesn't sound nice.
Akbar Shah I is a red linnk. It is not clear who he was.
"their life" is wrong grammar - "their lives"
"Khan learnt to read the Qur'an under a female tutor" - Is female important?
First printing press in Urdu language? Where? Surely not the first in the whole world.
Where did Khan pursue medicine? If it was a well known college, then it could be linked or at least mentioned.
"In 1840, he was promoted to the title of munshi. The family's misfortunes intensified with the death of his brother in 1845, leaving Khan as the main bread-winner." There is no link between the sentences. The promotion isn't a family misfortune. It could read - "The family's fortunes received another setback with the death of..."
Thoughout the article there is a lot of usage of "he would be" - For example - "1867. Two years later, Khan travelled to England, where he would be awarded the Order of the Star of India" - Why not just use the simple past tense - "where he was awarded the Order". That is just my personal preference. I have notices the usage of "would do this" in all articles expanded by you. It isn't much of a big deal.
Criticism and legacy - "He is defended by some modern historians and Aligarh scholars as mainly anxious to secure fair representation and political rights for Muslims, otherwise firmly believing in a united India for all its different peoples. While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." - Shouldn't the two sentences be merged. If not then the second sentence seems to be wrong. It starts with While.. and should lead to something (While A, B - where B should be something opposite of A).
Death and legacy - Criticism and legacy - Legacy in two sections. Maybe the two sections could be merged.
A small point you could add is his impact on today's world if any.
Besides all the above minor points the article is great. The only major point is the obvious lack of references (which I am sure you already have). Tell me if you need any more help with the article. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well-presented considering it is a subtopic of Trotskyism and it must be hard not to recover aspects covered in other Trotskyism articles. It provides enough background for a novice without being too simple. Good referencing and neutral point-of-view writing. Certainly a lot closer to FA status than last time. Some comments:
Use of capitalisations (such as SWP,IEC,RCP and FI). I suggest you add the abbreviation in brackets after the full name before using it alone. For the SWP in particular it was used first as US SWP and I had to scroll up two sections to find out what it referred to. There are also sections later in the article where the abbreviations become somewhat overwhelming. Perhaps the occasional substitution with the full name (or when the reference is unmistakable 'the commitee' or 'the party') would make it more readable.
Too many redlinks
Still too little explanation about the previous Internationals (second doesn't appear, first mentioned in passing). I was looking for background like this at the beginning of the article.
Some style inconsistencies: U.S. vs US, first International v Fourth International,international v International.
The grouping of The Founding Congress and WWII seems a little strange, these could be split to make it flow better.
Alternative viewpoints suggests that the article is written from a certain point-of-view. I'd suggest changing it to External links or Further reading
I've now completely worked through the capitalisations; there are now considerably fewer (I've expanded some and removed some unnecessary ones). All remaining capitalisations are now explained the *first* time they are used, and again if they not used for several sections.
Now I've worked through the capitalisations, there are even more red links - I noticed a couple of groups mentioned which were never linked! Most of these shouldn't be too difficult to write articles on, so I'll work through them.
I've fixed the link for the Socialist International to point to the Second International. The difficulty is that interaction between it (strictly, its successor, the Socialist International) and the Fourth International was limited, and the story of the link is historic, in particular lying in the WWI splits from it which mostly ended up in the Comintern. Perhaps a brief mention in the intro and a section on communist concepts of an International would clarify this?
I've standardised to "U.S." in each case, and capitalised "International" when it refers to a specific International. I don't think it would be appropriate to capitalise "first International"; the "Fourth International" termed itself as such; for obvious reasons, the International Workingmen's Association did not call itself the "First International"; rather, the idea of it being the first of a series of Internationals is a later concept.
I've split the Founding Congress and WWII sections. You're right, this does seem to make it flow better.
Good point on "Alternative viewpoints"; I've changed it to "Further reading".
Heh, no comments for two days, then I get an edit conflict. :) It really has improved. I've been trying to allocate time for a thorough review without luck yet, but here's what I see so far: 1) Some of the paragraphs are too short and have some choppy prose, adding up to poor flow in places. There's probably about 10 short paragraphs in that situation, I didn't check the prose in others. 2) The lead is much better but still needs more context. It still uses terms that you already need to know the material to know what they are. GPU, Third International, Comintern. It also doesn't say if they had any success or why they are the most important Trotkyist organization. It doesn't really tell us what their ideals were or what they tried to do, except a little through inference on what you tell us they were unsuccessful in. 3) The article's largely chronological structure makes it difficult to see at a glance the organization's impact, legacy, importance or lack thereof, etc. I would recommend shrinking down the chrono stuff to a reasonably small section to give a contextual overview, then use other broad sections to cover the various most important aspect of the organization. Are their views one and the same with Trotskyism, and would other groups agree with that? The Trotskyism section seems to be to only one giving overview of their views/goals. Hope that's a start - TaxmanTalk23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure it's the best way, but it seems better. It is unfortunately a lot of work, but if it results in a great article it will be worth it. - TaxmanTalk15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that (although I'd have to see both versions to make up my mind, that's how close it is). I like the chronological approach, although I agree with Taxman that it makes it difficult to see the impacts of the organization: it might be better to dedicate a section to this at the beginning and then maintain the chronological layout. Yomangani15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably fine too, but if you add something, you'd still probably need to summarize the chronology a bit in order to not make the article too large. - TaxmanTalk16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about these suggestions, I prefer this idea - it avoids rewriting large sections of the article which are already in pretty decent shape, while clarifying the FI's impacts. Warofdreamstalk11:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An update for various suggestions: almost all the red links are gone, and there is now a section on political internationals and how they relate to the Fourth International. The lead has also been simplified, and explains or avoids less obvious concepts (other than Trotskyism and political internationals, which are detailed in their own sections, immediately following the lead).
It looks much better to me: the section on internationals and the brief section on Trotsky are just what it needed for the novice reader. Like you say, the impact section still needs writing but apart from it looks good. Yomanganitalk17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on the section on the FI's impact; there is little agreement on it, so I've considered the views of various tendencies and compared it with the tasks it set itself. Warofdreamstalk03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. It's as ready for FAC as I can think of after one thing. The lead still throws the reader in too abruptly. What's Trotskyism? Give us one or two more sentences in the lead adding that bit of context. Tell us earlier (in the first sentence) the fourth international is a socialist political organization working for x. The new sections later in the article cover this extremely well and though I still think the impact section could more clearly come out and tell us whether historians in general regard the organization as being widely influential or not, the article is clearly currently among Wikipedia's best. - TaxmanTalk00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "has been" to "is" in the lead as it seemed to be an artifact from the rewrite. Looks good to me though, and I agree with Taxman: you should now put it forward to FAC. Yomanganitalk10:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many changes have been done to this article recently to get it to GA or FA article status, but any and all suggestions pertaining to this goal are wanted. General suggestions, comments, and pointers to make this a GA or FA are appreciated, thanks. Okiefromokla02:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty good. I notice that there are still several unsourced paragraphs and statements on the page which would count against it at FAC. Comprehensive sourcing would be something that would need to be addressed. Here's my citation criteria for featured articles.--Zleitzen(talk)08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially edited this article, and tried to make it adhere to the guidlines set out in the Wikinovels project. I am looking for constructive responses, specifically those that deal with how this article can become an FA. Thanks very much -Adasta-16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just passed the article for GA, and have left a list of suggestions as to how the article can be improved on the article's talk page. Moreschi13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several places where I dislike the style, especially the plot summary. This should be a rundown of the progression of the plot without including the styling of the actual text. I would rather see shorter summaries of other stories, like the Japanese one. But my main problem is one of ommission. Nowhere is the significance of Wilde's revisions to the second edition mentioned. There changes were used in his criminal trial to show his intentions of corrupting young men. Also I believe there were some remarks in the preface to the second edition that were also used in this manner. I will have to look up a source later but this aspect of the topic is of high encyclopedic value. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Awadewit
I'm sorry to say that this article should never have been passed for GA.
The biggest problem with this page is that it does not base its analysis of the novel on the work of literary critics or any kind of scholarly source. I clicked on almost every internet source. The sources here are appalling; they are sites like cliffs notes, sparknotes and gradesaver. These are not reliable scholarly sources and do not reflect the current state of scholarship on Wilde or Dorian Gray. Do we really want the outside world to think that wikipedia is basing its entries on books that students use to cheat in high school and college and that are notorious for their mistakes? I think not. Moreover, the information that you obtain from these sites could be just plain wrong; it will obviously be superficial and incomplete. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on solid scholarship by experts. See WP:RS. I would start with The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde edited by Peter Raby. It has introductory essays on major topics related to Wilde and his texts. It also has a helpful bibliography. I would then move on to the MLA database. The editors of this article need to spend months researching this article and totally rewriting it.
Moving on to other problems.
The lead has too much plot summary and a cliched statement about the book as a "classic."
The plot summary is difficult to follow at times and has some odd sentence constructions.
I am not a fan of character lists. The plot summary should adequately tell the reader who the important characters are. Wikipedia's novel pages look too much like sparknotes and not enough like an encyclopedia entry. Character lists only enhance this effect. There is no real information gained from these lists.
The theme of "aestheticism" which critics have definitely agreed is central to this novel is never explained, nor is its connection to duplicity. The quotations do not stand in for explanation.
The page also does not make it clear what is the editor's interpretation of Dorian, what the editor read at sparknotes and what is a scholar's interpretation. It is very confusing. It needs to sound less like a college essay. The extensive use of quotation is part of what gives it this appearance of a personal opinion.
While anti-Semitism might exist in the novel, the page has presented it as one of three major themes in Dorian. That seems far from fair to me. The editors need to read the scholarship on this text. If the scholarship emphasizes that theme to that extent, then the page should as well, but if it does not, then it should not be given undue weight and other, more important themes should be included.
Although there is no written proof that "Urashima Tarō" had a direct influence on The Picture of Dorian Gray, it is the notion of deferral of aging is central to both stories: Dorian's primary wish is "to be always young". - Why have you included this extensive section on the Japanese tale? What scholars have discussed this?
I would urge the editors to integrate the "allusions to other works" into the "themes" section. For example, why was Faust alluded to? The reason is that there are similar themes in Dorian - explain the themes and the Faust reference (using scholarly sources) together rather than separating them.
The former date is also significant in that it coincides with the year in Wilde's life during which he was introduced to homosexual practices. - This is a highly dubious statement. The editors need to read more about Wilde. The page should also take into account what literary critics and historians have said about "homosexuality" in the nineteenth century - it was not nearly as defined as it is now. There is much to be said on that topic.
The "literary significance" section seems like more of a "publication history" section.
The "Allusions from other works" is listy and seems to reference almost entirely works post-1980; delete or include pre-1980 works.
The date of publication of article "Who was Veer Savarkar?" is stated wrongly throughout the references. The correct date is 2004-08-23 and not 2006-07-28. Also, the article relies completely on a single reference. Try finding other references. Some links from external links section might help. Also, an infobox would be a welcome addition. Include and populate {{persondata}}. Whatever I knew about the topic is already present, so I am not in a position to comment on comprehensiveness. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I've made some minor changes to bring this in line with the standard format around here: links to main articles and futher templates above the section text, important names integrated into text, see also moved above references and other such minor formalities. As to accuracy of content, I'm pretty weak in this area so I'm not in a good position to judge or help out much there. The article is very clear and concise, but I would like to see some of the very brief sections expanded a bit. Something like the article philosophy of mind with two or even three paragraphs is the usual standard. The article is not at all over-technical and it is nicely organized and comprehensive. Just needs a little bit MORE detail, IMHO. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - the article looks a lot more professional now. I take the point about very brief sections, especially under 'Central questions' - but the advantage of having the separate headings is that the 3 questions appear in the contents.--Sam Clark12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's shaping up into a very nice article. There's always some redundancy, as this automtaed monster here points out. More imprtantly, watch out for words like "some", "many" and other so-called weasel words. Even a citation would be sufficient. Nice images!! Lastly, more citations never hurts on Wikipedia. Good work!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias10:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I read through the article and made a few changes to sentence structure, wording etc. I think its a very good start! A couple of suggestions:
I think the paragraph under the heading Central questions could be better worded.
Original: Three related questions are central to the problem of global justice, and the main positions in the debate may be distinguished by their approaches to them, and ways of relating them.
Suggested: There are three related questions that are central to the debate on global justice. These questions concern the scope of justice, the distribution of justice and the institutions responsible for justice. The main positions in the debate on global justice can be distinguished by their approaches to these questions.
I'm not quite sure if that is what is meant by the three headings (particularly distributive justice), but you get the idea.
You link the scope of justice to moral universalism without actually defining what moral universalism is, and then later in the article you refer to it. Perhaps you need to spell out how the question on scope of justice relates to moral unviersalism.
You don't do the little summary bit (the sentence which spells out its answers to the 3 questions) for The society of states section.
They're the only suggestions I have at this stage. I would love to read more about it, and the article could definitely go much deeper into the different issues in the future. In regards to your comments above about the history, it would be interesting to know why or if anything triggered the conceptual shift towards justice on a global level, and also if the different positions in the debate came all at once, or in response to one another, or a particular event. Does there seem to be any sense of reaching a consensus or is there strident opposition to other positions? Etc JenLouise02:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - really helpful. I've made some changes which hopefully go some way to answering your points. Actually, I'm not sure quite why GJ has become such a big issue in politial philosophy recently. I suspect that, as with so much in the discipline, it'll turn out to be something to do with Rawls. Cheers, --Sam Clark10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's here looks pretty good, but could it be more global in scope? This looks like a good summary of the main positions which are popular in the English speaking world. Is there a good way to mention Communist views, Confucian views, or Liberation Theology? All 3 seem like popular approaches to global justice that don't quite fit into the rubric here (are there more? What do Indians think? Do we need some discussion of post-colonialism?). Am I misunderstanding? Bmorton318:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for looking the article over. I'm in two minds about the issue you raise, to be honest. On one hand, of course you're right that anglo-american insititutional philosophy doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of justice for the whole world. On the other, I'm concerned that the article will bloat out of all recognition or usefulness if it tries to cover every such idea, as well as duplicating a lot of material from elsewhere (some of which I point to in the 'See also' section). I did consider moving the whole thing to a new article called 'Global justice (philosophy)', but I tend to think that political philosophy shouldn't be completely separated from the immediate puzzles and worries that make it necessary. At the moment, my half-hearted solution is the first sentence: Global justice is an issue in political philosophy. Whether this'll do, I'm not sure. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:55, 4 ugust 2006 (UTC)
Sam, I faced a similar problem with philosophy of mind and the issue of systemic bias arises often on Wikipedia re philsophy articles. My general impression is that most people are satisfied to see some mention (a few sentences) of, e.g., how Hindu or Buddist views fit on the spectrum of the basic poistins that you are talking about. Something like, "the Chinese moral thinker X expressed a cosmopolitan position which slightly differed from this in 1078" with reference and so on. The point is to try to find examples of non-Western thinkers and sources that can be interpersed throughout the text and then work it into the existing text without bloating it. I'm not sure if this would work in the case of this article, but its just a suggestion.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definately see your worries. Moving to Global Justice (philosophy) wouldn't help because most of these are philosophy positions. The Confucian line that the benevolent man loves all men, but loves them partially rather than impartially, is a direct response to Mohist critiques, and it works equally well against Utilitarians, and it was thought of as a philosophical position. Likewise for Communism, and post-colonial philosophies, they think of themselves as philosophy. Bloat is a real issue, but I don't know the right way to prevent it while keeping to the WP mission. If we wrote a short paragraph something like "Global Justice in other philosophical traditions" and just gestured to these, do you think that would pre-empt later bloat problems or just lead to them? Bmorton313:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a common way to approach the problem. Write up a new subsection, in the same summary style as the others, and link to other articles, Mohism, [[Confucianism], etc, where possible. To prevent later bloat just watch the page and insist that everything additional be cited and/or discussed on the talk-page before insertion. P.S.-- this is a pretty good review process here!!. Howvere, it shuld be ON the PR page so as to provide an example of how to go about this stuff. In fact, I'm going to move it there. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Along with Lac., I think the article looks good. There's a minimum of nonsense, it gets right to the point. My first thought is that it's a bit bare-bonesy. You had considered mentioning institutional aspects and obstacles before (i.e., talking about IMF/WTO, etc), and I'd encourage a followup with that. My second suggestion would be to break the complex sentences with semicolons down into smaller sentences, for ease of read. Lucidish02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for the comments. I'll have a look through for complex sentences (I'm an academic, I can't help it...). I wonder if both your and BMorton3's concerns could be addressed by a 'broader context' section which talks both about the issue of global justice in history, and the various institutional mechanisms which have been endorsed and challanged? Cheers, Sam Clark14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize. I just received my Bachelor's degree, and find myself; using; colons: too much.
As long as it doesn't get too long, I think that a historical context section would be a great idea. It would also give the reader an opportunity to grasp the main issues. For instance, issues like the Marshall Plan, unilateral invasions (vs. multilateral ones), certain foreign policy doctrines (i.e., the Monroe Doctrine, esp. the Roosevelt corrollary), overseas labor, genocide, etc., are all serious topics concerning global justice which have currency in contemporary political debates and affairs. I know you touch on the variety of issues in the intro with the rhetorical questions, but a history section would ram the ideas home through illustration. Lucidish15:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know - but I'm operating according to DBuckner's 'defer to precedent' policy. Rhetorical questions, first person locutions, and italics (especially to indicate technical uses of terms) are all standard practice in philosophy, as we both know, and I don't see why they should be lost just to satisfy someone's - naming no names - particular tastes in prose. They're too useful, for a start. Thanks for all your comments and improvements, by the way. Cheers, Sam Clark11:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be mainly about distributive justice, and the wikiarticle about Justice describes two other kinds. Is the Global Justice philosophy you are writing about here only about distribution, or is this article unfinished? If it's only about distribution, I think you should include that in your abstract.
I come from Hitchhiker's Guide, and first persons are verboten not because of any Unitedkingdomese predilection, but because it's part of what's understood to be what you do to make an entry encyclopedia-like. I have read the beginner's stuff on Wikipedia (I'm new!) and so it seems that doing third person stuff is something you'd do to adapt your knowledge to this particular format. Is this correct?
Hi, and thanks for your comments. 1. Distributive justice is one of the three central issues for the global justice debate (along with the scope of justice and institutions). The other kind of justice mentioned by Justice is retributive justice (not sure what the third kind you mention is), but there isn't really a separate debate about global retributive justice (to the extent that the issue is mentioned at all, it'd come under 'institutions' - international criminal courts etc.). 2. First person - the view of some active editors is that this should be avoided, but this isn't policy, to my knowledge. My view (expressed above) is that this is inappropriate for philosophical articles, because the appeal to what 'we' think is a useful tactic for exposing and challenging buried assumptions, and widely used in philosophy encyclopedias (I've just opened Honderich ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy at random and found two examples). Cheers, Sam Clark09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the first person again. This new entry on "belief" in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy has about sixteen "wes" in the lead section alone. Without it, the article would sound so awkward and unnatural that the author would probably have had his work rejected. This is, of course, a professional (i.e. soldi!!), peer-reviewed (in the strict sense of that term) publication.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias17:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
