This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jashiin(talk | contribs) at 18:06, 17 November 2004(Requests - Cocteau Twins, images and their copyrights). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 18:06, 17 November 2004 by Jashiin(talk | contribs)(Requests - Cocteau Twins, images and their copyrights)
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 websites listed in the article have tons of band/members photos and album covers, but I'm afraid to use any since they're never credited, and I don't know anything about copyrights. It really pains me since other than that the article looks very nice. I'd really appreciate if someone with more experience in the field could help with the images :) -- Jashiin 18:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It has been criticisded (a criticism which I full accept) that it is too POV. If someone could take the time to tone it down a bit (without changing the context too much or making the man look like a tosser), I would be very grateful.--Crestville 16:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A simple method of codebreaking. The plan is to include the article in a WikiReader on Cryptography. I'd appreciate any adding comments / fixes etc. Thanks! — Matt 19:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is the result of merging by a non-expert. This, and its related articles, need a thorough review by someone who knows the field: also, something needs to be written about HTLV-2: there seems to be an assumption in various articles that HTLV == HTLV-1.
Some edits might have to be done, mainly language issues. I am not a native english speaker so there may be an abundance of errors in the text. The factual bit is pretty well covered I think. --Bong 00:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article got a bollocking by Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopædia Britannica in his article The Faith based encyclopedia (how do you like that, atheists! *grin*). Someone knowledgable want to go through it with a fine tooth-comb and show him just how good the article can get? Needs a bit of cleanup apparently. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I added explicitly that page as a reference for the birthdate. I also added a note on the talk page requesting someone either get further references to fact check the article or use what is listed there already if they have it. It will be some time before I can personally get to the library and get a good book on it, so I'm hoping someone can do it sooner. - Taxman 14:23, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
I expanded this article a bit but it has not been touched since. I definitely think it could use another editor looking it over for copyedits, formulations, facts and perhaps clarifications/expansion. Thanks. ✏ Sverdrup 01:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Copyedits for clarity, precis. Katefan0 03:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
This has been a refactor and expansion, and may have become more technical than necessary. There is much use of jargon, some of which is defined. Help is requested on the use of jargon, specifically, and everything else generally. - Amgine 00:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A tricky article. I hope I've done justice to the somewhat controversial topic. I'd appreciate any helpful opinions or edits. - Scooter 21:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work on this article and I'd like some suggestions. Anyone? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:45, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
The article looks good. However the Falklands War is not an example of two democracies going to war against each other as Argentina was under Military Junta at the time. Also I notice no mention of Dean Babst (mentioned on the talk page as someone pre-dating Rummel for positing the idea), you may of course have looked into this and discounted it. If this is the case, perhaps a reply stating this on the talk page may clarify things. CheekyMonkey 12:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article has a lot of potential, but it's not quite encyclopaedic enough and I have no idea how to go about changing it. It needs a table, more direct facts, (e.g. we need to know average widths) more factual prose, and less cooking instructions, but I'm just a newcomer, so I need help. Vhex Hvexscousin 18:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes it could use a classification table such as is used in the other fish articles. (E.g.Tuna.) I'm not so sure about the descriptive statements; they seem to personalized. (E.g. 'grotesque change', 'exceptionally odd-looking', or 'luckily'. I actually think the Flounder is a rather interesting-looking creature, rather than grotesque.) You could probably use words like asymmetrical or abnormal, for example. But that's just my opinion, of course. -- RJH 18:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is a lengthy mess. It appears that in the past no consensus was formed but instead each side of the debate merely dumped its material into the article. It could use some dedicated editors to assist in forging consensus, eliminating some of the material, and disproving some of the wilder assertions presented as fact. Gamaliel 01:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll have a go at refactoring it into a main article with a number of subpages. Expect to see something drop in soon. jguk 08:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tried to expand this into a more general discussion of what we mean by the standard of proof. Not really sure if its an acceptable direction to take the post in. Perhaps someone could leave feedback, I'm pretty new to this. (Posted by 129.67.64.248 19:06, November 10, 2004)
Hi, sorry, but it's too much of an essay towards the end. It's a good start on a needed topic, but it needs to have an encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Think who what why when where and address the issue from all ways and all subjects it applies to as much as you can. I also put some helpful links on the user page for your IP address, User talk:129.67.64.248. Keep up the contributions, you'll get there. - Taxman 00:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be good if someone with a fresh view takes at look at this article - I suspect I might be overlooking things just because I've been working on it so much. Thanks in advance for the critique and suggested improvements! ¶ Mark Dingemanse(talk) 23:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I was wondering if someone would comment on this article — say whether it needs expansion, if it's too long-winded, if the grammar needs to be corrected, and so on. Also, I'm thinking about adding a picture of the cover. Leroi henri christophe 13:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
hey there i just finished this article and i'd like some comments or ideas for improvement, oh and also i need an image, any image that would be suitable so i can get it to feature status. --Larsie 17:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It does need some overall copyediting, and many terms need simpler in line explantions. Also carefully consider many of the redlinks and see if they either already have their own article named something else, or if they really are notable enough to have their own article. The genetics section needs a clearer explanation of why it only effects males. The fact that women have two X chromosomes would not necessarily entirely preclude the disease from occuring in women, I believe a problem in one of the X chromosomes can cause some genetic diseases. Why does it not in this case? I was trying to think of a way to fix it but the entire paragraph needs to be re-ordered to fix that and make it clearer. Check the featured article criteria, the article needs explicit references. - Taxman 17:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Just breaking it up into briefer paragraphs would be a start. Very long paragraphs tend to "exhaust" the reader and they quickly lose interest. -- RJH 23:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ok so i got rid of most of the red and will porbably write article to get rid of the rest, iadded more references and also re-formatted the paragraphs and headings/subheadings etc. how does it look now??? --Larsie 23:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is a comment by an anonymous user from a talk page, put here by the same. I don't feel qualified to work on the wording, knowing nothing about the matter, or even if it should be deleted as irreparably unNPOV, belonging in another article, or unnotable. The title is certainly vague and it should be moved, but I don't know to what. -- [[User:Djinn112|Djinn112♠♥♣♦,]] 23:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
This is short enough that I think it should just be merged into Hinduism, the parts that apply there. It certainly needs to be attributed to some second source or else it is orginal research. - Taxman 16:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
It could be merged into Hinduism and other religions. I wouldn't call it original research; I think this view is just the Hindu view on the Gods of the three monotheistic religions (all being paths leading to the same source). It needs some rephrasing though. ¶ Mark Dingemanse(talk) 09:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is it marked as for cleanup, when it is not registered on Wiki:Cleanup?
Probably because it got archived off the Wikipedia:Cleanup main page, but still has the {{Cleanup}} tag at the top of the page. I think it needs more wikifying adn general copyediting, so you can remove the tag if you like and just leave it listed here. By the way, how does [[Wiki:Cleanup]] link to an external site? - Taxman 18:15, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
This list is all but done, but I'd appreciate it if somebody more knowledgeable about chemistry could check the molecular designations for accuracy. Thank you. — RJH 19:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to have some background information in this article. Where does the information come from? What institutions or space agencies do collect this sort of information, and how exactly? ¶ Mark Dingemanse(talk) 09:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay I added an external link to an NRAO reference site, and included a brief description at the top with links to other articles with more information. Thanks. -- RJH 17:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've put some comments on the article talk page. Filiocht 12:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. -- ALoan(Talk) 12:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sections on mountains and islands are short. The part about pollution is a list from the CIA. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:47, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks - other than lists of mountains, etc, what would you like to see in the sections on mountains, etc? Yes, the conservation section is very bad. Again, what else would you like to see? -- ALoan(Talk) 18:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Beautiful, concise gem; needs some clarification of its graphs/timeline scales, perhaps a bit more prose for context. +sj+ 21:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--Maybe merge it with Geologic period, whose short text would make a good introduction? --agr 15:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It probably worth mentioning that the scale is still a work in progress with the International Commission on Stratigraphy working toward a global consensus. There are still many regional differences and differing nomenclatures in related literarture. [1]CheekyMonkey 00:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could use a bit of cleanup; more textual description of what are currently lists; another reference perhaps? Further notes of use in chemical reactions, as substrates and reagents... all lovely articles. +sj+ 10:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Needs slightly better introduction, a conclusion, and a clever way to handle its long timeline (perhaps extensive, or multiple use of the new timeline feature?). +sj+ 10:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A beautiful content-rich history. Could use some narrative and introductory work. +sj+ 10:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It could use some more images too. Alchemy is the subject for beautiful imagery. For example, something like the symbols for the four elements (quick and dirty example here) would fit the first paragraph of the overview. ¶ Mark Dingemanse(talk) 13:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's a couple of extra images to be going on with. -- Solipsist 11:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could use a few fresh pairs of eyes. Has lots of great content, but a long lifetime of edit disputes. +sj+ 10:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It looks good overall. Perhaps the beginning could be a little more introductory in tone for the novice reader? Also, I may have missed it, but I didn't see any discussion in the article concerning the difference in the approaches for hard sciences (physics) vs. soft sciences (psychology), as well as field-observation sciences (archaeology or astronomy) vs. laboratory sciences (chemistry or materials). -- RJH 23:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Having NPOV problems here. Could a non-Christian non-non-Christian please take a look at it? CheeseDreams 23:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Took a look, added comments, and wished for this to be written in Japanese, my native language, from the headache looking at unfamiliar phrases. I can't comment on f or j as reasons are not offered. BTW, I'm Shinto-Buddhism and is a non-Christian. Revth 01:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A recent development is that I have noticed Slrubenstein is trying to bring people (via their talk pages) whom he sees as supporters of his POV into the discussion (see his contributions list). I do not think this is a very NPOV thing to do. I would like a variety of people from different points of view/NPOV to please comment on the issues on the talk page (at the base), so that weight of numbers dilute his what-I-Would-See-As Gerrymandering?
By the way, I think being Shinto-Buddhist is a good thing for commenting on the article, as I think you will be indifferent to taking sides, therefore more Neutral. CheeseDreams 00:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All concerns from the last (summer) peer review have been adressed. Do you have any further comments or can this be moved to featured candidates now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Much of what is there is very good. But also much of the article is just a list of his works. The standard comment made in the featured article discussion is that this should be moved out to a list that is linked in the article. Once those are out the article is a bit short. If he is one of the founders of sociology is there not more to write about him? Also, were the "resources" used the write the article? If so they are normally called references. The lead section is a little short. There are a number of one sentence paragraphs; those need to be either removed, merged, or expanded. There are also a lot of wikilinks to things that perhaps should not be articles. Anything that is purely a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedic concept should not get a wikilink. Examples include "descriptive". Similarly some concepts are just not notable enough to have their own articles, so they should not be linked as well. I'll leave it to you to decide some of those. Just the shear volume of red links leads me to believe that perhaps many of them do not in fact need to be their own article. See WP:VFD for some of the things that are commonly not considered worthy of articles. - Taxman 00:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Tnx for your comments. I moved the list off and expaned the article (it is atm 31kb long even without the list). Resources renamed to references. I merged some short paragraphs but honestly don't know what more can be added to the lead. As for red links, I think that they should be made into an article, although I did remove few that would only point to Wiktionary stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, the biggest thing I see left is the one and two sentence paragraphs. Its a simple but obvious error in good prose style. Also the link in the intro to economy is incorrect. Do you want economics or political economy? As far as expanding the lead section, it should summarize the whole article and be 2-3 paragraphs long. See Wikipedia:Lead section. Good lead sections are hard to write, but they are key to a great article. Think of it as everything you would say about the man and his accomplishments if those 2-3 paragraphs were all someone would read. - Taxman 13:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Please feel free to suggest any changes. This article should be a featured article at some point, since Munoz Marin was an incredibly important person for democracy in America.
User: Coburnpharr04
This is my first major article and I want to know what people think. I'm open for any criticisms, but I think my major problem is wording and grammar in the latter part of the article. I've spent too much time writing this to see my errors. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 22:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I done some work on the ilinks. Perhaps you could clarify it in the text and batlebox that the battle was not limited to Inchon, but it went as far as Seul as well (if I understand the article correctly). Perhaps the article name should be changed to Operation Chromite? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(1) Should use the templatized battlebox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles). "battle before" and "battle after" are the wrong way round (2) Minor formatting stuff: image in battlebox should be as wide as the battlebox and needs a caption; don't use thumbnail style for the landing map as there's no caption. (3) There should be something about the strategic background, i.e. UN forces encircled at Pusan. (4) Why not land at Pusan and break out? (5) Some of the metric conversions are over-precise, e.g. 8 miles should convert to 13 km, not 12.8 km. (6) North Korean commander and strength is missing. (7) The casualty figures in the battlebox cover only the landings, but the article goes on to discuss the campaign that followed; maybe you need to move some material to a new article, perhaps battle of Seoul? (8) Give full names for people when first mentioned, e.g. General Forrest Sherman. (9) There are some bogus links, e.g. Admiral Doyle is linked as Doyle, which is wrong: find out his full name and link that. (10) Use intentation for quotations. (11) Needs references. Gdr 00:51, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
I think I answered some of your concerns but one I'm having trouble with is the battle of seoul. The information I have says that the "battle of seuol" took place later when the Chinese entered the war. I agree the casualty number is confusing but I did write the land battle in the aftermath heading to seperate it from the main battle. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
Looks quite developed. I think that the problem here is not the lack of content, but too much of it. Assuming 'detailed chronologies', 'people' and 'Political parties and organisations' are moved to subarticles, do you think this would make a good featured? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Latinheads should see if there's any connection between the words I put in (focus, etc.) and Dutch and English fokken, fuck, etc. lysdexia 05:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you can't support the connection with references, take those words out. Gdr 01:06, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
(aka Lal Qila or Red Fort)
I spent some time untangling the various sources of information on this place. Unfortunately, I have no authorative way of checking my data. If you know Agra Fort, ever been there or want to help research it in some respectable book or journal or magazine (there are few authorative web sources on it, that I've found), this would greatly improve the article.
Also, I'd like to know a complete list of the buildings/places in the Agra Fort and maybe have a better, longer explanation of some or all of them. I might have duplication among names since there are always so many different names for these things. Agra Fort itself has about three to five names.
Please review this and/or make corrections. I would like some feedback --Paul Pinson 02:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have done a major reworking of the article. On the whole, it was very good, but had a lot of opinion sections that didn't seem appropriate to an encyclopedia article. I left most of those parts in the HTML comments, in case you feel that some part of them should be saved. I also moved the page to The Ill-Made Knight, which is the punctuation used on the page for The Once and Future King, added some information, and moved the picture over to the right-hand side, adding a caption. Mpolo 09:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Missing the inspiration
The current article misses that a large part of what White was doing, that is adapting all the Lancelot material from Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, often in an explicatory fashion with emphasis on psychology and often taking the same events and providing a different meaning to them. White read Le Morte d'Arthur and fell in love with Malory's work, became obsessed with it. The Ill-Made Knight is in part an explanation of what White got out of Malory, an attempt to explicate Malory's tales and an attempt to retell them to bring out the feelings they inspired in White.
In Malory Lancelot adopts the name Le chevalier Malfait as an incognito when he recovers his sanity in the Grail castle. He explains it thus:
said syr Launcelot my name is le Cheualer Malfet that is to say the knyght that hath trespaced
That is, it is a shortening of Le Chevalier qui a mal fait 'The Knight who has done ill'. Lancelot had trespassed against the queen by lying with Elaine the daughter of Pelles. White takes the French differently and more literally. White seems to have asked himself, what kind of person could describe himself as ill-made, a description which White may have thought applied very much to himself. The quotation given in this article is very much to that point. The psychology of Lancelot in White part comes from such concerns.
Various legends had cited various persons as the finders of the Holy Grail. White allows all three of the most commonly-cited discoveres to find the grail, Galahad, for his purity, Parceval, for his innocence, and Bors, for his doctrine.
Very wrong. There is no allowing here. White's treatment of the grail quest is entirely from Malory, including the parts played by Galahad, Perceval (note spelling) and Bors, all of whom take the grail to Sarras together. White makes almost no changes in the events he includes from the grail quest, other than to summarize them and to present them second-hand as commentary, as a way of explaining Malory's text, a way of focusing on details that many readers don't notice, countering common misunderstandings of the story, trying to explain show how this tale which in style and purport is so contrary to much modern expectation and convention is meant to be read and appreciated. This section is perhaps the best appreciation of the grail quest in Malory ever written.
I don't have the expertise to expand this intelligently, but there's no question but it should be expanded, and it needs to be better organized. — Bill 15:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ah, so close. Guess I nominated it a bit early. Looking at it through a more jaundiced eye, the article has a lot of info but is a bit disjointed. - Lucky 6.9 04:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does the valley include the Salton sea? The picture makes it look like it does. Geography of the area certainly needs to be covered. The Salton sea has a lot of unique features, controversies and environmental issues that could be covered if it is included in the valley. Also many other facets of the area besides the history and celebrity status/trivia need to be covered. - Taxman 23:35, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Can somebody review this article, its kind of boring. Its mostly about his career highlights and things like that.
There's a lot of good info there. Have you thought about breaking it up in sections by season, maybe? Also, you probably don't have to use "Gary Sheffield" and "Gary" as much--you can use the pronoun almost all the time. That will make it read a bit more smoothly. Looks good. P. RIIS 16:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Harun, a a common protagonist of Arabian Nights stories. I found this article and improved it a bit by adding pictures and references. If anyone else can improve it more, does it have a potential for being a featured article? OneGuy 15:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to have good material, though I have no knowledge with which to verify it. But it needs a lead section. Also I can't remember the last time an article that was not long enough for a number of subsections successfully became a featured article. Though there is no reason it wouldn't if the writing is very good and the coverage is complete. - Taxman 00:55, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
I just finished up the "List of features on the Moon" page and it is primarily a list of geologic features on the Moon that have been given designations by the IAU. My primarily request is for somebody to do a quick check to make sure the coordinates of the various objects are correct. (There's a link at the bottom of that page that has the coordinates available.) Kind of a tedious task, I know, so I greatly appreciate somebody taking the time. Also if you see anything else that needs fixing such as the Eponyms for the objects, &c. Thank you. ... — RJH 22:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note that I didn't consider most of these features link-worthy, so I didn't put the brackets around the names. Most of the features associated with a crater are being described on the crater page, &c. The links could always be added in later as needed. — RJH 22:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Albedo and Catenas checked - one correction made. I may not have time to do the rest so anyone else please feel free to dive in. --195.11.216.59 17:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dorsa and Dorsum done - four corrections made. --195.11.216.59 08:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I discovered this article and decided over the last few days to do a lot of work on it. Given that, I will list here what I think can be done, and other issues I noted:
Since I just reworked large portions of the article, I hope someone can help me throughly NPOV this, because of course, remenants of my POV may be stuck in sections that I wrote.
With all the external references, I think this could be highly internalized, with large extentions of sections into subarguments and analysises. I disliked either referencing to sources that are not that accurate in POV, or better express information that I think is relevant, but must be phrased such that no copywrite issues are involved. I have already gone through the article and made sure that no single point comes from any one source, and that there is a lot of information behind any statement.
The scale was made with SETI as in mind, if anyone can provide a section about SETI's applications of the scale and any information upon its other uses, or even popular references to the scale, that would be great. It seems to be prominent in science fiction community discussions, but I only have cursory involvement with that, so I only provided as much as I knew from discussions from other people, along with the literature that I have encountered. This also leads back to a POV issue, because of my limit on sources that I have access to.
If someone could either get an image/graph of global power production growth, that would be great because I had a tough time finding one, given by the fact that there is none on the page.
Extended section on current values, with fractional scale values pertaining to particular dates (ie. development of steam engine, light bulb, World War I, World War II, 1970's energy crisises, and numbers for the last three years (2002, 2003, 2004). Maybe a discussion of near term (20-100 years) predictions, along from predictions of time until crossing the Type I, and Type II barriers.
I put in information about civilization cycles, but can someone help me find a source that talks about this that doesn't proclaim the 'end of the world is 'nigh' or explain how 'alien gods will decend upon the Earth, angered by the human race, to destroy us all on December 21, 2012.' Well, maybe I am paraphrasing a little, but you get the point.
If anyone enjoys to mercilessly criticize and correct grammar and spelling, be my guest, whatever makes the article better.
Thanks for anyone's help in advance. [[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_build\talk]] 20:01, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) (Sorry Solitude, I thought the style of the signature was cool, hope you consider imitation the highest form of flattery)
I have prepped my talk page for all discussions and commentary, talk, and I would prefer that editing discussions occur there or the article's talk page, while suggestion discussions occur here. I will be away/busy until probably next Tuesday, but I will try to respond to any questions before then. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalkFile:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 05:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just hit the motherload in terms of references, can someone help me get together and compile all this information. From the article On the Inevitability and the Possible Structures of Supercivilizations Karadashev developed a second scale on possible outcomes of extraterrestial detection/nondectection.
There seems to be a lot of back and forth about lingusitic and especially genetic evidence. I have no expertise in this. I've made a few remarks at Talk:Basque#dubious_edits. I'd really appreciate it if someone who is knowledgable about the evidence on the history of the Basques and does not have an axe to grind would step in. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Written from scratch by me, I know it could be expanded with information on her other books. But currently it could at least use some copy-editing for spelling and grammar, considering English is not my first language. Ofcourse suggestions or improvements of any kind are welcome. Thanks, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:44, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Solitude, I am new to Wikipedia so excuse me if I don't know all the etiquettes. I enjoyed your information on Jill Ker Conway. One question I have is about your comment that she is an American author. I wonder if this is true - does she consider herself to be an American author? I have always thought of her as an Australian author. Actually, when I first heard of her I thought she was Canadian! M.
Please provide suggestions on what sections of the article should be reworded, and where the scientific explanation of the dynamics is out of the scope of the casual reader. I would like to find the sweet spot between accuracy, readability, and this being the best place to find out what the MBTI is really about on the Internet. I have three ideas for new sections, although I am not sure if I should include all or none, so that advice would be useful as well. They include a section soley on the psychometrics involved, a section on the history of the indicator, and a section on temperament, which is not an aspect of the MBTI itself but is popularly believed to be on the Internet and elsewhere. Would briefly explaining what temperament is and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to the MBTI help in clearing this up? Thanks for your suggestions on this and anything else. -- Alterego at 1:18 AM on 10/22/2004
The poll of Wikipedians I think is too self-referential; there should be a less navel-gazing way of highlighting the predominance of INTJ geeks on the net.
I will replace the poll with a link to the polling at the bottom of the article. Thank you. As an aside, there is a corner of the net for every type, although a few will be statistically non-existant. Off the record, the large supply of INTJ and INTPs are due to the nature of the website we are on :) Also, my preference, ISTP, are known as the "walking encyclopedias" :) - Alterego at 4:27 PM on 10/24/2004
I'd like to add that there probably is a better to way to represent the population breakdown in an image than with rendered text. Say, with pretty, multi-colored bars ;) I also agree that the Wikipedians poll is too self-referential. -- Fredrik | talk 09:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The image I have placed is actually a screenshot of rendered html/css. I could not find a way to present it nicely on the right side of the page. I am not sure how I could go about implementing your idea. Do you have a way to do this? Thank you! (i should note that i just added a section on temperament) - Alterego at 4:27 PM on 10/24/2004
I rewrote the whole article due to the previous version being unsalvageable because its source material, Greg Goebel's Vectorsite, was totally inaccurate. I'm considering submitting it as a FAC, so any constructive criticism and advice is welcome. Impi 23:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A minor point, but the first photo overlaps with the text of the lead for me (Firefox 1.0 browser, monobook skin). Markalexander100 05:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I've fixed it now, take a look. Impi 13:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm thinking of submitting this as a Featured candidate. Observations, suggestions, and comments welcome. -- Infrogmation 18:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(1) The second picture of him is claimed to be public domain but I see no evidence for that. (2) The painting is copyrighted, and I don't think this can be justified as fair use. (3) Needs to name some printed references. (4) There are a number of value judgments, inevitable in a biography of an artist, but you could make them NPOV by explaining who exactly makes those judgements. For example, instead of Dalí was an artist of great talent and imagination, you could write something like Many critics, even those who thought his work morally repugnant, considered him an artist of great talent. George Orwell wrote, "Dali is a draughtsman of very exceptional gifts. He is also, to judge by the minuteness and the sureness of his drawings, a very hard worker. He is an exhibitionist and a careerist, but he is not a fraud. He has fifty times more talent than most of the people who would denounce his morals and jeer at his paintings." (From "Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dalí") (5) The biography is a bit scrappy, with a bunch of short paragraphs. Can you make it flow better, perhaps by grouping subjects such as his relationship with Gala? Gdr 22:37, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
there is a company, I believe it is in Redondo Beach, that has the copyright to most of the Dali artifacts. One might seek permission there. I'll try to find the name.Pedant 01:44, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this article a rant by somebody proclaiming capabilities as a silver bullet for security? --Robert Merkel 10:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I read it that way, although there are some assertions with which I don't fully agree and a few that are unnecessary. Most of the article appears to reflect reasonably current thinking about securing computers. There is, however, considerable room for improvement and expansion. Did you have something specific in mind within the article? --RJH 22:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Read computer insecurity, and the POV is extremely thick. Capabilities, or any other specific technical measure, are only one part of keeping computers secure, any more than a specific type of lock is the answer to keeping physical facilities secure. How do capabilities make one lick of difference against social engineering? How would capabilities prevent the surrepstitious installation of a hardware keylogger, or wireless packet sniffing, or a tempest attack, or somebody walking into the computer room and stealing the entire set up backup tapes? --Robert Merkel 05:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If anyone has ideas on improving this article, it would be a great help. Vacuum 18:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
The article could use a healthy dose of heirarchical organization. There's a ton of good information, but the size and relatively flat heirarchy have caused it to become somewhat disorganized, which makes it difficult to navigate. Notice that there are fifteen main sections, each fairly large, but no subsections. The section on diagnosis, for example, effectively has three subsections: "modern diagnosis" "historical categorization" and "symptoms", though they aren't labelled as such. Formalizing those and/or a couple other subsections may help put a few of the paragraphs in an order that flows better.
I think if it were subsectioned (maybe separately on paper first or in a sandbox), some further organizational options would become clear. Some bits may show a clear need for reorganization, e.g. if there are small mentions of "history of diagnosis" and "history of treatment" they could be moved to the main "history" section or even broken off into a separate page. Or maybe the social aspects (incidence, symptoms, etc.) vs. clinical aspects (diagnosis and treatment) vs. scientific aspects (causes and research) provide another route for reorganization or splitting into multiple pages. IdahoEv 05:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Apparently no one who wrote this article is watching it. I put some comments (and images!) in the talk page a while ago and would like them clarified and added to the article if they are correct. - Omegatron 03:46, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Short, but hopefuly quite complete. Any suggestions welcome. NeilTarrant 13:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a graduate of said system, it seems fully in order to me. I would have thought that any more detail would probably be too much, so the article gets my support as it stands. Naturenet 18:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My first attempt at a significant contribution was a major rewrite and expansion of the page on this sport. I'd like a sanity check to make sure I'm on the right track and doing things to community standards before digging in further. Concerned about overlap with the Ironman Triathlon page, which preexisted Triathlon and was much larger, though it's a specific subset of the sport. I also added the subcategory "Endurance sports" to contain this sort of event, along with marathon, nordic skiing, etc. Many thanks. IdahoEv 05:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, definitely on the right track. See Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article for some more of the criteria for our best articles. A print reference used in the writing of the article would be great, in either case you need to note if any of the external links were used as references specifically. Also a GFDL or creative commons licensed picture would be great. It is a de facto requirement for featured articles. Also, try to eliminate one or two sentence paragraphs. They are bad form. Good work - Taxman 19:05, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, thanks much for the thoughts. I am trying to put together a composite photo using my own pictures from races, so that I can confidently GFDL it without worry. (If anyone who reads this has nice shots they'd be willing to contribute, please contact me). I'll go back and note which web references were used where in the article; so far everything has been from online or from memory. I do know of a couple of good books on triathlon, though, maybe I'll check them out from the library, use them to flesh out the article, and cite them. IdahoEv 21:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Could you say something about the conflicting physical demands of the sport? (Good long-distance runners are thin and light; good cyclists have big legs; good swimmers have big shoulders and small legs.) You might mention how triathlon introduced tribars to cycling. Gdr 22:45, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Good suggestions; I'll look into implementing both. IdahoEv 07:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Basically a steaming pile of POV. Honestly, not even Christian views of women has this much anti-Christian bias! Can people please look at the talk page and either comment or start editing? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article is obviously NPOV (NPOV or POV?!), but it's architecture, and it's suppose to be humour. Is it valid to go thourgh and npov or should we just leave it as it is?
I think it's very valid to go through and NPOV this article (some words and phrases are very loaded, and there are some value judgements in there); the McMansion is a widespread kind of house, and term is spreading too, I think. I'll have a crack at this article if I get time. Katherine Shaw 14:42, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Since you listed this here, anon user 66.234.211.233 has gone though and POV'ed the hell out of it. This article needs a lot of work. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 14:55, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
