This project page is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.
This page was last edited at 05:34, 20 January 2005 (UTC) (20 years ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.
Sorting out transcludes on this page, the Wiki is currently giving lots of errors.
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than three months.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
I think this article is about ready to be considered for featured article status. Would like someone to look it over and see if they concur.--XmarkX 10:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd appreciate train buffs and those interested in Ohio history looking through this and offering suggestions. PedanticallySpeaking 18:09, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Granted, I'm not a train-buff nor particulary into Ohio history (WV-history is another matter, but then my better half is from there), but I like learning new things so I popped over and looked throught it.
From the initial read, I got one suggestion: Break it into sections. Please. It's (IMHO) much easier to read on a screen when it is.
Other than that, nice article as far as I can tell. I enjoyed reading it.
I'd agree. I would break it into sections and also maybe see if you can have a see also section where it links to the List of United States railroads page so people can find out more information about rail lines in the United States. Otherwise, looks good. --Woohookitty 00:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you kindly WegianWarrior and Woohookitty. I've divided it up into sections of a graf or two apiece. And I put a see also link to the lists of active and defunct railroads. PedanticallySpeaking 18:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'd add a map, though I do understand that it's nontrivial to make one. The easiest way is probably to use a map from http://www.nationalatlas.gov/ and draw the lines. --SPUI 21:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is a link to a map in my external links. Unfortunately, I'm not that adept at some of the technical side of Wikipedia and don't know where to begin on drawing a map of my own. PedanticallySpeaking 18:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Are we able to expand the lead section? We need more than one sentence, and we should make it so that we can get a readers attention ("Wow factor"). The map idea might be good (especially of the route), but I can understand if that's a bit tricky. However, well researched and this definitely has the potential to be a featured article! Last thing is: do you have any other images? That always increases people's interest. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your praise. I'm not very good on the technical side of things so I wouldn't even know how to begin to draw a map of the route. Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures. Someone else added the one that's there. Finally, I will take a look at the lead. My leads usually have been very concise, along the lines of the inverted pyramid style, and others have commented on my leads. Thanks again. PedanticallySpeaking 14:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
I can't see anything else that needs to resolved then! Thought about submitting it to FAC? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hoping to get the above referenced articles featured. Appreciate a group review! Revmachine21 10:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not sure I'm so happy about having a list in the lead section. The list in "Natural disasters" seems to start arbitrarily, perhaps we could convert this to prose with a very brief description of each of the disasters (in a similar way that you have described volcanoes). I'd suggest the same for the man-made disasters bit! Lastly, we need a proper references section. I think there are a few surviving disasters books that I've heard of: I think one was a handbook of disasters. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The reason for only having a basic list was that by surfing to the natural disaster link, each event was briefly described. I considered prose description on this page a duplicate of information and a waste of hard disk space.
On a different note, my contributions were an in-between-jobs project for the benefit of all mankind. I just started with a new company and will not be able to hit these articles very hard. Will do what I can as able.
Revmachine, it's very good! I just figure we can make it better :) It's great to see a real expert contributing to our articles - I especially found the Business continuity planning very interesting, and this Disaster article is also very good. In regards to a waste of hard disk space: that is literally not a problem. We encourage material, and we ask contributors to never consider hard disk space! Wikipedia is not paper. Also, the reason I suggest prose is that an article should be fairly self contained in it's own right. It's not duplicating information, it's just summarising it! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I did a quick review of this article. First comment, the article needs more like:
* aims and objectives of conference
* participants
* any agreements to come out of the conference, and
* any further action items to come out the conference.
Added your page to my watch list to see the development. Would you reciprocate and review my disaster and business continuity planning article? Thanks in advance. Revmachine21 11:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Learn more about an obscure language today! I've been working on this one for some time now, and it would be good to get some input from other editors. I would like to take this one to WP:FAC eventually, and any help in moving in that direction would be appreciated. Please check this article for EAL-related issues (I'm not a native speaker) and take some time to comment, criticize, and suggest improvements. Thanks in advance! — mark✎ 13:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by what "Westermann (1970 [1952]:56), apparently based on Rapp (1933), places Nafaanra ('Nafana') in the Senufo group." means. Is Rapp a person? Why are they significant? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Both are persons. Rapp (1933), a word list by Eugen Ludwig Rapp, is significant for being the first linguistic publication on Nafaanra (see References). Rapp is mentioned here because it is significant that Westermann most probably relied on his (Rapp's) word list in classifying Nafaanra. When dealing with somewhat obscure languages like this one, it is important to know the background of the linguistic classification because usually only a handful of people have really looked into it. As a matter of fact, the classification is often amended when new data comes to light (something which has not been the case for Nafaanra by the way, an indication that Rapp's data was very accurate). But, I agree that the wording is a bit obscure; I'll try to improve that but you're welcome to play with it too (this applies to the whole article of course). — mark✎ 12:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Super cool article! The sample sentences are great. I'm not used to reading this kind of material, so I don't know if you set them up according to some well-known standard, but I found them wonderfully illuminating. The whole is really excellent. I'd like to do a light EAL edit tomorrow, if nobody else gets in there first, but I can't think of anything else, it's totally FAC-ready right now. I was going to ask if somebody like maybe Mustafaa might give it a more professional review, but I see from the talk page that that's been taken care of. :-) (Visually, on the other hand: I suppose the table needs to be that big, and too wide for the map? And that orange color... ?) Bishonen | Talk 00:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the nice words. Most sample sentences are based on sentences from the Jordan 1978 article; I'm glad to hear that I succeeded in arranging the matter in an illuminating way. As for the table, the size and colors come from WikiProject Languages; nothing to do about that indeed. — mark✎ 12:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to make this into a featured article candidate. If you have any ideas or criticisms, please edit the article or at least post comments on the citigroup talk page. Thanks
A few comments:
Too many three-sentence paragraphs, resulting in less smooth reading.
Related to that, too many (sub)sections, making the article look fragmented and uninviting. Try to join some subsections.
Stock: currently this section only lists some links to stock-related Wikipedia article. I don't know anything about shares, but a featured article on Citigroup would certainly have to say something about the stock rates over the past years etc.
Why put the scandals first and only after that the divisions, activities, and other basic information? I would do it the other way around.
"Citigroup was also accused of helping Enron and other companies hide their losses by loaning money to those companies in a special way that would reduce liabilities visible on the balance sheet." What way did they hide their losses? What was that special way? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"A New york lawyer accused the company for financing South Africa apartheid government when it was under UN sunctions. The money was used to suppress the same people who are currently paying for it." - which NY lawyer? Where is the source for this? Seems dubious! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"During the commission investigating Goldenberg scandal in Kenya, the company name has repeatedly come up as a chief vehicle for trafficking money from Kenyan economy." - what is the Goldenberg scandal? Where is the source for this? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to hear someone's thoughts about this. I'm continuing to work on it and I like to imagine a day when it can be a featured article, but the article is about 95% my work and I'd like to have someone else's input. One thing about the subject is that there aren't too many solid facts, but there are a lot of questions and a lot of historical speculation. I'm uncertain to what extent I should report such speculation, and whether it's OK for the article to be as short as it is when the available facts are relatively scarce. Another thing: have I overdone the sourcing? I like to attribute as much as possible, but in the past I've been criticized for citing too much. Everyking 18:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cool article, Everyking! Sourcing: I don't think you've overdone the sourcing, and it's good to have most of it tucked away inconspicuously yet accessibly in footnotes, freeing up the text, which can occasionally be confusing from all the referencing of primary sources as it is (see below). But the footnotes don't work right: they're supposed to take you to the bottom of the page when you click on them. You need to have them encode the actual name of the section referred to; look at Philetaerus for an example. Also look at that article for an example of separating "References" from "Footnotes". If you do a more standard footnote system (well explained here by Paul August), you could actually have fewer superscribed footnotes in the text, a Good Thing. E. g. the little swarm of notes in the paragraph beginning "The victor of Heavenfield, Oswald of Bernicia" might be consolidated into one long note mentioning several sources, which is impossible with your present system. It's not a lot of sourcing information that's distracting to the reader, it's the gnat-like presence of a lot of superscribed note numbers.
Having said that, I do think the info in note 1 should be more summary, considering how small the difference is between the alternatives. Did Penda die in 654, 655, or 656? You don't make a case in the article for why we care. Also, while this may not be a rockribbed rule, it's a matter of good rhetoric to preferably avoid footnotes in the Lead, especially having a note after just a few words. If it was me, I'd mention the 654—656 conundrum further down, and footnote that instead.
Text: ("The battle was known as Cogwy to the Welsh"—so? Is that nugget meant to be just dropped in there, or is it connected with the rest?) From a position of ignorance, I find the "Early activities and beginning of reign" section very confusing, I think it's something to do with the way it keeps coming back to disagreement in the sources about dates, and partly subordinates everything else to that, and at the same time other things are trying to get out from under, like the description of Penda as most warlike. And the agreement after the battle of Cirencester seems somehow linked with the doubts about how old Penda was (surely not? but it says "also"—I can't figure it). I think you need to restructure this section quite radically, and to signpost as much as possible what the focus/foci of it is/are. Perhaps more, rather than less, of source disagreement could go in the notes, making it possible to keep a cleaner line of argument in the text? Or, you could try to highlight the few things that aren't in doubt (are there any?) The next section, "Hatfield Chase and the reign of Oswald", is a lot easier to follow, and I think it has to do with the way all three paragraphs there open with a sentence about something simple that is simply the case—oh sweet relief—and only then go on to all the doubtfulnesses. In relation to the complexities and doubts, the rest of the article reads altogether extremely well, congratulations! Length of sections and of paragraphs is just right, helpful for flow and easy on the eye. And sure the article's long enough—it's comprehensive, isn't it?
Images: I realize you'll have to manage without a portrait, but what about a few nice pics of illuminated manuscripts or something? Best,--Bishonen | Talk 10:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC). Comment was apparently deleted by El C, I assume accidentally, after 7 minutes; I'm reinserting it now.--Bishonen | Talk 12:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. El_C 12:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; I was unable to reply to them initially because my friend RickK thought he could make an exception to Wikipedia policy for me, because I'm so special. Well, I've fixed the link style; they were that way before, too, but then someone changed them, I don't know why. You're probably right about "Cogwy"; it should just be in the Battle of Maserfield article. I think you're also right about the first section, but I've thought about that and I'm not really sure how to improve that. I'll keep thinking. Everyking 01:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was aware that there might be a problem of replying and editing. :-( I'm sorry, that whole business must be shattering. The pedagogics of the first secion are tricky to fix, no doubt. The uncertainties in it ought not be simplified. I could have a go at moving bits of it about, if you like, from the disoriented reader's POV, and post a suggestion on the Talk page for your consideration. I'm only too likely to produce a version choc-a-bloc with misunderstandings, but at least that might point you to specific opportunities for a reader to get things wrong.--Bishonen | Talk 10:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Would it be possible to expand the lead section? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know...crafting a good lead section can be hard to do. I'll think on it; I've already reworked it a few times now, never quite to my satisfaction, though. Everyking 03:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very well done. My principal point of criticism is that you cite 2 articles without giving full references -- or are they articles from a collection of papers like a Festschrift? In either case, please add more bibliographical information. The rest of what I have to say I suspect you probably should leave to someone else though, Everyking:
Some points in this article could stand some copy editting -- I couldn't help myself & that's why made the changes in the wording of your footnotes. But this would be done best either after you've left this article alone for a few days, or asked someone else to do it. And this polishing really doesn't detract from the article.
Something that doesn't leap out right at the beginning, but it does linger with me after having read this once or twice is that there seems to be no attempt to explain Penda's actions. When one strips away all of the details on each battle, what is left is a rather bald narrative of "First Penda defeated the kings of Wessex, & then joined with the Welsh to defeat the Northumbrians, & then fought another battle, & then was killed by the Northumbrians." While it is risky to try to explain this king's motives (one would argue that doing so violates NPOV), making it clear that Penda started with a second-rate power (i.e. Wessex), then moved against Northumbria because it was the major power in Britain & so forth would help avoid the "& then" effect. However again, I don't know if you should do this, or leave it undone for a future editor. -- llywrch 23:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I cited them as best I could, I gave all the information I had, and since I was working off of direct copies I suppose I gave all the information that existed. Could you specify which references you're referring to? If you want to copyedit, go right ahead; I know people think my writing is too verbose, but I try to be as simple as I can while keeping the meaning as exact as it needs to be. So just be sure not to lose any of the meaning. As for your last point, that would be attributing some central design to Penda's ambitions—that he intentionally started with a smaller power, moved against Northumbria because it was the major power in Britain, etc. I doubt that when he fought the West Saxons in 628 (if that's indeed when it happened) he was envisioning some step by step process towards dominating his neighbors, although he may have envisioned such a process towards establishing or consolidating his power within Mercia. But in any case, all that seems much too speculative, whichever way you take it. We could perhaps cite references attributing to Penda some central design such as that. Anyway, why do you sound so leery of me editing the article myself? Everyking 12:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll take a look in my library at home to see if I have an example of what I'm talking about that applies to this period: adding a sense narrative to a biographical overview. But as I wrote above, it's not an issue that would keep me from voting for this article as a Featured Candidate, just a suggested improvement.
I'm not implying that you shouldn't make the copyedits I suggested to the article yourself, Everyking -- or make any further edits to it. I'm sorry that it came over that way, because it was not my intent. My point was, based on my experience as a writer, is that often after working on a piece for so long & so intently (as you have done) you starts to overlooking small details that need fixing, or assume that because you know what you're talking about, so does everyone else. (Here I'm using the second person in a general sense, & not directed at Everyking; I've had this problem of literary myopia, & so have other writers.) That's why I suggested that you take abreak form the article, forget about it for a while so you can go back to it with a fresh take. Or, if you want to get it considered at WP:FAC immediately, ask someone you trust here on Wikipedia to copy edit it. That was all I was saying. -- llywrch 18:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, sure, I agree with that. That's why I listed it here on peer review. Last time I went straight to FAC things didn't, uh, go so good. Anyway, can you point out what references you were talking about that you thought were lacking? The Prestwich article about Aethelhere at the Winwaed? I truly don't believe there's any more reference info that I can give for that. I got the journal, the title, the author, the page numbers, the year and month of the issue. Everyking 18:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about not specifying which citations, Everyking; I got distracted & forgot to add that information. (I'm writing this from work, & for some reason my employer wants me to get some nonWikipedia stuff done.) The ones I was indicating are both in footnote 1:
'D.P. Kirby, "Bede and Northumbrian Chronology", 1963'
It's far more useful to have citations in the extensive manner as you did with J. O. Prestwich's article in footnote 16. -- llywrch 20:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh! Yeah, I see what you mean. Well, the reason it's like that is because those are basically references for the notes, not for anything in the article proper. I could fully cite those articles, but it seemed like it might be too much if it wasn't directly referring to something in the article. I figured if it's a footnote, I better keep it short. Everyking 20:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well your citation of Kirby picqued my interest, & I was curious to see whether I could track down his article. If you mention a source in an article, please provide sufficient information so an interested reader can locate it. You did that nicely with Prestwich's article. -- llywrch 05:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll add the information into the article, but I'll comment it out so it doesn't weigh down the text too heavily. If you believe it should be visible to the reader, feel free to make it that way. Everyking 11:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's an interesting article. Some of the sections seem a little unnaturally combined ("Descent, beginning of reign, and battle with the West Saxons" isn't exactly snappy), and a picture would be great - are there any coins with an image? Otherwise, a conventional depiction would add a little colour to the article. Warofdreams 15:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, they're combined because otherwise the sections would be really short. They are all loosely linked by chronology. There are no pictures to use that I know of. Everyking 16:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could there be some mention of the widely held belief that the penny was named after Penda? Dsmdgold 01:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I will. I hadn't done so yet because I'm unsure of the respective merits of the arguments—I've never read anything except "some people think..." Maybe you could do better than me? Hopefully I can eventually find a good source for the issue. Everyking 02:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have worked on this article for a while now, and I kindly request assistance in getting this article into a good shape so that it could be considered for a featured article status. User:Gary_D accepted to copyedit the article and gave me some good pointers. Any other help will be most welcome. --Zappaz 02:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article speaks of the ineffablity of "Yahweh," but it fails to account for that of Elohim nor mention Elokim. From the Centralized Dictionary for the Hebrew Language (p. 266):
Yehova, Yhova,
The original writing for the name of the God of Israel in the Mikra, pronounced "Adonai" or "Hashem" or "Adoshem" if its vowelization/punctuation is "Yhova," or "Elohim," "Elokim" if its vowelization/punctuation is "Yehova," since it is forbidden to utter the name in its letters.
Speaking of "Yehvoa / Yhova" viz. "Yahweh" as an important example, the article fails to correctly depict some Hebrew words –in their most common use form– phonetically. What the article calls "Yahweh," then (and yes, I have read the qualifications in the Tetrag. article), is incorrect in this sense: the word is pronounced "Yehova" or "Yhova" (Ye-ho-va: Ye as in ¥ yen, ho as in holy, and va as in value) not Ya-h-veh. Maybe philologically, but there is no "heh" (that is, the sound, phonetically, not the letter "hey") in modern use.
Some other examples of failing to convey words phonetically in favour of a more formal translation (an approach I urge the respective editors to reconsider), has to do with the choice of letters: a "w" instead of a "v" for "Yehova," a "b" for "Abraham / Abram" versus "Avraham / Avram," etc., so again, I am in favour of making clear phonetic qualifications for these. Perhaps it was pronounced "Yahweh" but it generally isn't in modern Hebrew, and I think that this should be noted clearly in the article.
Also, the meaning of Yehova as "He Causes to Become" (or, I would say, "He brings to being") that is mentioned in the Tetrag. article, is one which this article fails to mention, thus failing to bring to its logical conclusion its respective introduction: "the third person singular imperfect of the verb 'to be,'" an introduction which I do find superior to the one in the Tetrag. article.
Lastly, I think it's superfleous to have a References and Bibliography section, I would suggest that the two sources cited in Ref. be moved to the Bib. one which then could be named Ref., or left as Bib. (dosen't matter), either way, I think there should only be one. Hope this helps. Best of luck with the article. El_C
Thank you for the comments. Feel free to come around and do some edits as per the above. Just please keep the Ref and Biblio separated as it is customary (Refs are that: referred in the article, Biblio is generic stuff that is supportive of the text.) --Zappaz 06:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... the generic stuff should be in further reading then, I think. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. Feel free to employ any of the suggestions I listed above in the article, and to solicit my opinion on these (or anything). I, myself, only use Ref. as encompassing both the generic material and sources used in the article itself – the odd times I may resort to footnote, but I do not do so often because the code for it is somewhat buggy at this point; in fact, I think I only used footnoting once (in The Destruction of the European Jews). At any rate, what is customary varies, unless I'm missing some MoS policy to that effect, and my comment on that front was only a suggestion. Instead of the above, I tend to highlight sources used directly by denoting these at around the top of the Ref. list. It isn't, though, a point I would press on when there is opinion to the contrary, at least not in articles I made no contributions to. More on your talk page. El_C
I've done a bit of tidying up of the article. It needs some thorough copyed and linking if anyone's up to it. Gareth Hughes 23:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Recently went through heated debate and several edit wars; see Talk:Natural monopoly. Any comments or contributions welcome. Rd232 17:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep, looks like someone wanted to be the sole author of the article. You know how that goes. RJII 17:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a good article which resembles what one would find in an encylopedia written by people who are knowledgeable of the subject. I'm sorry if you prioritise pushing your political POV, especially when you can't be bothered to either (a) describe it accurately and succinctly (or even readably) or (b) research it properly (and provide actual arguments instead of pointless waffle). Rd232 18:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you want something that "resembles what one would find in an encyclopedia" then why don't you go work for Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia, from what I gather, allows for a little more diversity of information than what is present in traditional encyclopedias published by "the establishment." I'm sure Encyclopedia Britannica would love to hire a guy with your mentality. RJII 03:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're the one implicitly criticising my request for input from other Wikipedia editors. Honestly. If you're single-handedly trying to drive me away from Wikipedia, you're nearly there. Rd232 08:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Diversity of information" doesn't mean your NPOV bullshit. Wikipedia isn't a blog. Go play out your paranoid anti-establishment fantasies in some LARP. I've read all the revisions as far back as 16:54, 15 Jan 2005, and user RJII is abusing the topic as a political soapbox. A factual description of the concept of a natural monopoly does not include your opinion on what "advocates of laissez-faire capitalism" say, or your straw-man refutations of anything. Take it to the discussion page. Not the article. I can't find a version to revert to that doesn't contain opinionated crap, so some major revision needs to occur. I reiterate the need for peer review of this article. -- anonymous, 25 Jan 2005
Why is there a "common tendency for average costs to first fall then rise as output increases"? Also, the diagram could be improved to make it clearer that the $ axis is the cost. Also a brief description of a cost curve might be nice in the diagrams section: economics plebs like me find that sort of talk confusing :-) An explanation of a "dead-weight loss" might be nice, this is mentioned but I don't think it's too clear! Another question: who is Baumol? Is he an economist? I kind of guess he is! I realise he's in the references, but it would be nice to clarify this. Otherwise (from my non-Economist POV) this is a very informative and interesting article. And I don't find economics articles terribly interesting... Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for this image? Supposedly it's NASA, but no URL is given and I can't find any such image using Google or NASA search. The NASA pages simply say "very little is known about this moon". The image is suspiciously spherical for such a small moon; usually they would be irregular in shape.
Many of these are legitimate images, but there is also a purported image of Lysithea (moon) that looks suspicious to me. -- Curps 22:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Need to have this page (Gangtok) critiqued. Wrote a lengthy article on this mysterious capital of the state of Sikkim, India complete with images. I fear that the page is too much of a "travel magazine" and maybe a little too verbose. Nichalp 20:55, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
You're being too hard on yourself. Most of the article is very well written, interesting, comprehensive, and covers the subject from a variety of angles and with the right degree of depth. The images are superb. I think the opening two paragraphs need to be written in more conversational English. They appear to be trying desperately hard to grab attention, and there is a bit of oversell in using words like "cynosure" and "sybaratic" - it makes the opening seem very pompous. I suggest toning it down somewhat, in keeping with the general style of what follows it. The other sections are well written in my opinion. The only one that I think needs revision is the "Culture" section. The first paragraph I think is out of keeping with the rest of the article because it's POV and makes generalisations about the people that is out of place. I mean phrases like "nattily dressed" etc, there must be a better way of saying essentially the same thing. I don't think it's too verbose - shortening it may achieve the result of making it static, clinical and uninteresting. As it is now, it is very readable. There are tiny traces of "travel magazine" scattered throughout the article in the form of a few adjectives, that would be better served by more neutral/generic terms. Maybe some of the adjectives could be reconsidered, but that's a very minor point. Rossrs 11:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll take a close look on the first para on the culture; yes, it is out of sync with the heading. As for the intro, my personal opinion is that all encyclopedic articles need an eye catching phrase there. Pompous true, but it must be truthful and colourful at the same time. Nichalp 20:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delightful article. I would be hard pressed to improve on it. Deb 21:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am submitting this because the article's gotten very big, but I have been the only major contributor. Most of the information is things I learned helping to excavate one Decapolis city and touring in several others, with some assistance from a few written sources. I'm pretty sure the article is good, but I'd be more comfortable if I knew other people were reading and critiquing it. Any thoughts? Fishal
Nice article! I'm missing two things:
References.
A map. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cartographers (I'm listed there, but I don't take requests outside of Africa at the moment due to time constraints)
Steve Dalkowski was a minor league pitcher for the various Baltimore affiliates, he was as much known for his 100mph+ fastball as his inability to control it. I've been working on this article since last week and it's slowly starting to come together. What it really needs is more baseball buffs to have a good look over it (and hopefully some minor league experts as well, since this is not my forte) and iron out the rough edges. It also needs a good copyedit and the structure improving. Also, does anyone have a better picture? He's a fascinating character and this could easily become a great featured article with some TLC. Thanks for your attention. :) Zerbey 18:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Update: Article has been largely rewritten to address all concerns, feedback would be greatly appreciated. Zerbey 17:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Zerbey, you've certainly picked an interesting topic to work on! I found the article fascinating. However, I do have several concerns.
I read your sources, and comparing them back to the article, it is apparent that much of the material in the wikipedia article would definitely be considered plagiarism, if not an outright copyright violation. This material needs to be rewritten, where it matches the language and phrasing of the source article too closely.
:*Agreed, and this is my primary focus right now. Zerbey 19:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dalkowski's claim to fame was his fast pitches -- however (as I'm sure you are aware), even today there is dispute over the measuring of pitch speeds (what with "fast" and "slow" guns), making radar gun measurements best used for relative, not absolute, speed comparisons. Earlier technologies were likely even less reliable. I think that this article needs to discuss more thoroughly that the purported speeds of 105 to 110 mph were never verified. This doesn't make the article non-notable; it just shouldn't be reported as fact that his fastballs "on a good day" reached the 105-110 range.
:*Noted, will work on this. He was officially clocked at 95mph in the 60s but the results were controversial, this will be included soon Zerbey 19:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Testimonials of other players are very interesting and good sources, but it is known that some pitches "look faster" than they actually are, due to various factors including the pitcher's arm motion and release point. Some discussion on how pitchers in general can make pitches appear faster than they are, any information on whether Dalkowski used those techniques (although I realize that info might not exist), and the inherent unreliability of batter's testimonials due to these effects, should be included.
A parallel project could be the history of radar guns and other technologies for measuring pitch speed; lots of information on that is scattered through the Dalkowski article, but would be a good read by itself if collected in a new article. It would also shed lots of light on the whole question of "how fast were Dalkowski's pitches, really?".
Again, fascinating topic, I'll try to keep up with changes and help the article along where I can... it'd be a fun FAC, but not yet. Bantman 19:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be a possible Featured article. This is my first time submitting an article to Peer review, so please let me know what may be wrong with the article. JesseW 05:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree - the film would make a great featured article. It needs quite a lot of work though, and needs to be expanded, and analysed in more depth. It's all possible though, because the film is one of the all time greats, there is bound to be a lot of resource material available. eg Billy Wilder, Gloria Swanson's autobiography etc. There must be a lot of critical comment available too. Casablanca (movie) was a Featured Article, so if you're looking for a point of reference that would be a good place to start. If you decide to work on it further, let me know, I'd be happy to help. Rossrs 10:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Leading up to the 60th anniversary of her death, I think this article is a good one to try to raise to featured status. I have done a complete rewrite, and have sourced everthing I've written. One comment - I specifically tried to make the article biographical, and not a study of the diary, because I believe that if further discussion of the diary is required, it should be within its own article. (I don't think it's required though). I now hope that some new eyes will go over what I've written, and comment/edit appropriately. Rossrs 01:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please remove the bolded names. It is out of convention and looks ugly. Nichalp 20:07, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed them. I agree it looks better. thanks. Rossrs 02:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some more suggestions
The page size is 30kb. I would prefer to see some unnecessary text pruned so that the warning does not popup.
Consider putting a photo of Anne right on top instead of the statuette. If an image is not found, then put the diary's image.
The ToC is too long. Can you remove some headings?
Lastly, although I have not read the article in detail, I find that it lacks a definative flow; it seems more like a novel rather than an encyclopedia.
I appreciate that you took the time to look at this again, thanks. I have moved the diary image to the top & moved the statue picture further down. Works better that way, I agree. There will always be problems with photos - as far as I know public domain images of her are virtually nonexistent.
Now - not to start an argument, but I honestly disagree with everything else you've suggested. I disagree that 30kb is too long. Featured article Duran Duran (who will be well and truly forgotten many years before they're dead) is sitting at 43kb, so in terms of relative importance in world history, Anne Frank should be at least 900kb, but I'm not proposing it be stretched ;-)
Reducing the length of the article just for the sake of removing a warning message does not make sense to me either. It should only be done to improve the quality of the article.
Removing ToC headings is going to make individual sections longer. Note that Albert Einstein has 25 headings, Anne Frank has 15. The viewer has the option of not selecting them. The appropriateness of headings as they appear within the article, should be more of a determining factor than the admittedly ugly ToC they create.
The other things I can't action because you haven't really given me anything to work with. The reason I put this on peer review was because after spending hours writing, rewriting, editing and reediting this, I was done with it. To suggest I remove "unnecessary text" is not helpful or constructive, without giving some clue as to what you consider "unnecessary" because I've already gone through the process of editing to the best of my ability. Also I just don't understand what you mean by "I find that it lacks a definative flow; it seems more like a novel rather than an encyclopedia." You would need to explain what you mean. To me the sequence is logical, and flows appropriately. Comparing it to other biographical articles, which I have read through with considerable care, I can't see anything jarring that makes it more like a novel than an encyclopedia. I don't think it's perfect or I wouldn't have listed it here, but I do think its style is at least equal to quite a few articles I've read here, and also better than some. I'm not dismissing what you say, I've thought about what I could do to improve it, but your comments are vague and unactionable. Rossrs 10:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
have been thinking further about the ToC. Have gone back and reworked it to reduce it. Now has 13 headings only, with no subheadings. Another improvement. Rossrs 12:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We are all here (PR) to improve on the quality of this encyclopedia rather than pick arguments with other editors ;). I know some reviewers really put you through the grind (I've gone through it unfortunately) so I only quoted from what I had to go through. I don't want to be "arguing" with you, so that why I aim to clarify my points here.
See the phrases She made her last diary entry on August 1, 1944. and The camp was liberated by British troops on April 15, 1945. The single sentence would seem to be a climax or anti-climax of some novel rather than a more subdued paragraph in an encyclopedia. The three line paragraphs also seem to have abrupt endings. (I'll try and paraphrase a few lines on the talk page)
"Unnecessary Text", that I would leave it to you as I haven't read the article in detail. You could also precis it, which would shorten the length of the article. I still would prefer a <30 kb page. You wouldn't have to to too much of a job on pruning text I assure you as it is marginally over the limit. If major clipping is needed you can move 'fate of Anne's friends' to a dedicated article. The heading is just an ancillary topic.
The first and the third image could also do with a more descriptive caption.
The Toc is now OK, definately an improvement. Its not only the topics in the ToC that count, its also the overall asthetics of the page that scores as a FA.
This is really good. I understand what you're saying now. I've also had a look at what you've written on the talk page. This is exactly the sort of clear advice I was hoping someone would provide, so thank you. I'm not going to have a chance to look at this again for maybe a couple of days, but when I get time, I'll go back over it all. thanks again. Rossrs 21:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a highly controversial subject, and the article has not caught the attention of many editors. It has to be reviewed to have its neutrality and accuracy established. Etz Haim 08:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this article as an adaptation of an assignment for an English class I was taking, and I believe it would benefit from greater scrutiny. The article addresses the etymology of Go, and while I would appreciate help from qualified linguists and/or those who know quite a bit about historical linguistics, simple copyediting and stylistic suggestions would be helpful. I've written a first draft here, and I think that the help of a few linguists would benefit the article greatly.Zantastik 04:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
References... I'm sure you have some. Also, I was always told to write in full instead of using acronyms - I guess ME means Middle English, but what is PIE? More about how it relates to other germanic languages might be neat too, even if it's just a line or two. WegianWarrior 05:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
content ʘ From its title, it is not clear why the article would cover only the morphology etymology of the verb go in English. I think it would make sense to include some syntax and semantics as well.
style ʘ First, get rid of the first person perspective altogether. Also, the style is sometimes too inquiring, I think.
I agree with all of the above. I think the article could begin with a few illustrations of the verb and its forms in sentences, and more examples can be inserted in other sections. Long sentences need breaking up, in my opinion. And the section on the Latin ǐre and ambition seems like an unimportant tangent. The article has lots of very good information, but a few stylistic changes like that will make it able to communicate better. Fishal
222.126.45.178
Could somebody take a look at User:222.126.45.178's contributions? They're all first person. Are these copyvios, original research, whatever? RickK 09:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
This is not the purpose of peer review. We only really list individual articles for specific comment here. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is this advertising? RickK 09:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it was advertising, it is now a suspected copyvio, and how was it appropriate for Peer review in the first place? Please see header for purpose of this page.--Bishonen | Talk 21:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article has a note This article needs cleanup. It's far from perfect, but is no worse than 1000's of other non-perfect articles. There is nothing on the discussion page, but the history page shows frequent revisions. Apart from incompleteness, what is the problem with the current article? --Mount Pleasant 08:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've structured it and wikified a bit more. Looks fine to me now. Rd232 19:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is my first big leap into the wonderful world of Peer Review. Any suggestions would be helpful. Please don't bite the noob. Size of this page is apparently becoming a problem, please comment to the CFB Shilo Discussion page Weaponofmassinstruction 06:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this subject, so I will restrict myself mainly to comments on style and structure.
My first impression is that the article is too fragmented. Either there are too much headings, or the paragraphs are too short. If you're not planning to expand the article significantly, I'd cut down on the headings.
The article lacks sources/references. If the two external links are your only sources, it might be a good idea to indicate them as such.
Bolding headings is not in accordance with the Manual of Style. I fixed it for you, along with fixing a typo.
Hope this gives you a start! — mark✎ 15:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be not too far from Featured quality. Could do perhaps with a little more on his work (though without shading too much into discussion of Marxism which should be elsewhere). Any comments or interest in contributing? Rd232 14:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Too ignorant for informed comment on content I'm afraid, but I have a point about the references. On FAC, you will inevitably get asked for a list of sources. In spite of the various lists of printed and online works at the end of the article, the reader has no way of telling which works have been actually used as sources (=for supplying or verifying facts in the article). This is Taxman's hobby-horse, see Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems, and rightly so, in my opinion. The sources versus non-sources distinction is the important one to make, not the online versus printed works distinction. IMHO, a better set of sections at the end would be somethinig like:
Works by Karl Marx (incidentally, it's not clear to me why your Marx and Engels archive reference has a subordinated list of direct links to selected (?) texts appended, and the Gutenberg Karl Marx resource doesn't, but perhaps there are good reasons.)
References (online and printed works used as sources)
External links (online works not used as sources)
Further reading (printed works not used as sources)
I'm not personally any too happy about the logic of distinguishing between the last two, since I think online texts can be "read further" just as much as books can, but that's me; Wikipedia practice calls squarely for a separate "External links" section and the Manual of Style seems to assume there will be one.--Bishonen | Talk 03:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could we get some help on converting the point form to prose? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have sourced a much better image to replace [[Image:Wpdms davinci lastsupper marymagdalene.jpg]]. I will upload it, post the wikilink here and leave it to you to change it if you wish. --Zappaz 03:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here it is [[Image:Da Vinci The last supper.jpg]], and the detail showing John or Mary Magdelene at the right of Jesus, is here [[Image:Da Vinci The last supper detail.jpg]]--Zappaz 03:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Our article about ourself needs some NPOVing, some parallelization and balance, some clarification and even wikification. I dug into a couple sections, but many of them need help. +sj + 15:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I feel a bit alone with Shakespeare's reputation, please help with content. A few other editors have contributed valuably, but mostly on limited aspects, so what you see is in the main my work. I've done up the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries (not that they can't stand further improvements, esp. the 19th c, and of course critical eyes, too), but the rest really needs more hands. Come to the party, bring 'em if you've got 'em! These are some underdeveloped or missing aspects:
An international perspective. (I feel so ignorant.)
Elizabethan theatrical conditions. (Ditto.)
20th century stage reputation and literary criticism. (Not my field.) However, please note the Talk page suggestion for creating a separate article for Shakespeare movies (hint, hint, feel free to go create it), to keep Shakespeare's reputation from growing into a monster. It's already quite long. It's not comprehensive, though, that's the problem.--Bishonen | Talk 12:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Beatles song off of Revolver that is. This is my first article from scratch here at Wikipedia, and I wanted to know if I was headed in the right direction. I think it's pretty informative, but it might be lacking in a few areas. Anyway, any suggestions? Thanks for all your help! --The PNM 07:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this article some time ago and think that it is fairly okay, but I'd like some comments on how to improve it if anyone is at all interested in taking a look. I'd really appreciate it! Thank you, -SocratesJedi 06:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I like it, it's basically well written and on an interesting subject, though it could do with a little copyedit and removal of an occasional whiff of promotespeak ("a vast array of subjects"). I'll try to find the time later to do a little of it myself if nobody else does. Objections:
Lead should be expanded with something about why Mathworld and Scienceworld matter, not just mention them. According to the article, they constitute his main claim to fame, so they need to be in focus in the lead, too.
I think the Education section is too detailed to interest anybody but his mother. Compare the amount of detail on education in this CV that you link to, that seems about right to me.
This link [1] is malformed/dead: it revives if you remove one world, but then it redirects to mathworld "search", so I guess it wants fixing
The image is copyright and used with permission, which does not include third-party use. When I tried to use an image with limited permission like that in October, and asked on the Pump if it was OK, several people told me it had just become non-OK. Apparently Jimbo had just decreed that from then on it was going to be either a) unconditional permission or PD, or b) don't use it. I guess you're still OK, with your September upload, but you won't be indefinitely. Do you think it might be possible to persuade Weisstein to release it unconditionally? Hope this helps a little, --Bishonen | Talk 23:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I guess it didn't? SocratesJedi, since you seem to be around the place and editing other pages, do you have plans for showing that appreciation any time soon, like by replying to the points or addressing them on Eric W. Weisstein?--Bishonen | Talk 08:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is my first edit, which is also a major re-write. As such, I would greaty appreciate any comments about things I may be doing wrong or things that look fantastic. I was very careful in its writing, and I feel it is good as well as complete, but as it is my first article, I would love the opinion of the community here. DrWoody 05:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think you must mean Sleeper Hold ;) But, apapert from that, I have a couple of suggestions:
Pictures - either a drawing or a picture of this hold.
More of the history behind it would be interesting, if you could trace it.
References, references, references... everytime I put somethign up for peer review, I'm asked for it, so I guess they are important ;)
Overall, an interesting piece. take that as justified praise from a layman, who's style of 'martial art' can be described as 'wild swings and headbutts' ;) WegianWarrior 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been looking around for a drawing or illustration that would help clarify the article, but this could take me a little time as I'm not familiar with all the copyright issues of wikipedia yet. I'll get it eventually, though. As far as references, I'm a little stuck. Pretty much 100% of the information in there is personal knowledge, and this knowledge was learned first-hand from another person. What is the proper way to make references in this case? And finally regarding the history, I am also interested in finding more in this area, but all of my efforts have turned up nothing so far. Google is flooded with 'sleeper hold' pages that only refer to the Pro Wrestling version, which is not very helpful to me =) Thanks for your input! DrWoody 07:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very nicely written, the care you've taken shows. However, the title capitalization is non-standard, you need to rename it "Sleeper hold", see Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized, e.g. use John Wayne but Computer game." It's a simple procedure, you won't feel a thing: click tab "Move" and follow instructions. Agree with Wegian that references are necessary and a picture would be lovely. (Don't get the "you must mean.." bit.)--Bishonen | Talk 03:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I have changed the title to 'Sleeper hold'. I had noticed that small problem when re-writing the article, but someone else had originally titled it with both words capitalized and I was not sure if it was appropriate to move it =) See above regarding references. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "(Don't get the "you must mean.." bit.)". Thanks! DrWoody 07:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, doc. The copyright issues are basically that you can only use for instance a picture you find on the web if a) you can get permission from the copyright holder to release it under GFDL (unlikely) or b) it's really old, or the person who created it has been dead for 100 years (even more unlikely). I think your best bet would be to take a posed photo yourself and upload it, stating that you're relasing it under GFDL.
Your reference problem is a bit trickier than average, I must say. Do you think you'd be able to get any references by asking the person you learned it from? I don't know the subject well enough (trying unsuccessfully to sound like I have the slightest idea of the subject) to figure out a smart way of limiting a Google search—do you think you have exhausted that possiblity? (A simple "sleeper hold" minus ""professional wrestling" is no help, I see.) A third possibility: drop a note on User talk:Taxman and lay your referencing problem before him, he has given a lot of thought to the subject and believes, I think, that it's possible to find references for any article (if it's a legitimate article at all).
Sorry the "...you must mean" was confusing, it was no big deal, just that I was talking about agreeing with Wegian's comment and thought I'd better point out that I don't get what Wegian meant by saying "you must mean Sleeper Hold <wink>". Best, Bishonen | Talk 20:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This has gotten a lot of tlc recently; should be fac'able soon. Thoughts? There are probably many related articles it should be x-referenced with, and perhaps more attention should be given to other related terms of non-english origin. +sj + 17:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure exactly what you are asking for. I can't see much room for wikification, and (and as someone who studied tsunamis during oceanography modules at university) I have tried to keep the science on track as far as possible. Do you have more specific concerns? Dan100 21:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Since you're one of the people working on the article, you are not the audience I am hoping to attract by listing it for peer review :-) PR is a good way to get feedback about good articles from people who don't otherwise visit them, but have a strong sense of style. +sj + 13:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As a lifelong student of Japanese language, I have a pet peeve about the word tsunami in English. The plural of tsunami is tsunami, not tsunamis. From a style perspective all plurals should follow Japanese convention. Revmachine21 05:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The plural in English is "tsunamis". Just like the plural in French of cameraman is cameramans. The borrowing language need not respect the plural-formation rules of the source language. -- Curps 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we should make it tsunami in this case. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The word has entered English and takes English plural. From dictionary.com: n. pl. tsu·na·mis. It's even got an adjective, tsunamic, which sure isn't Japanese. RickK 05:38, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
If you can cite a good example of this "tsunami" as plural, I might change my mind. But you'll note that the link header that was changed to "-nami" is actually titled "-namis." I find no use of "tsunami" as plural in the usual news sources in English. It's an oddity of transliteration similar to, say, "perogies". . . Zosodada 05:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
English borrows words indiscriminately from many other languages, and plurals are always formed according to English rules — the only historical exception is Latin (and perhaps Ancient Greek) because Latin was a compulsory subject in schools until a few decades ago. Otherwise, English speakers would have to memorize hundreds of exotic plurals on a case-by-case basis for every single word with a foreign etymology. Should the English plural of "sheik" be "shuyukh" (sp?) because that is the plural in Arabic? -- Curps 05:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Revmachine cited an "edit fast" site which suggests looking in the dictionary to solve these dilemmas. My English dictionary says "tsunamis" (pl). Curps is correct. Making "Tsunami" plural here would be instituting a new convention, but I don't think that is the intent of Wikipedia. Perhaps, however, it should be noted at the Wiktionary. Zosodada 06:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wondered what needs done before nomination to featured status. DAVODD 08:57, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'd be interested in reading more about the various species and why, at one point, there were more species recognised than there are now. After a bit of Googling, I came across this interesting FAQ, which suggests one alternative use(!). It suggests that the Wikipedia article could be expanded somewhat. A few extra photos (such as the closeup of the hairs and leaf in the FAQ) would be good, too. The FAQ also contradicts our article in some places, "Depending on individual opinion there are some 50 to 100 species of Stinging Nettle in the world." and "Various substances have been claimed as being the active principles of nettle venom, based on speculation and supposition. In fact the venom is a cocktail of three substances, each highly dilute: histamine, acetylcholine and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine)." — we probably need to cite sources. — Matt Crypto 09:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've made some style edits and broken the article into several sections. I did this not because there's enough material there now to justify it, but because I'd like to see each of those topics developed more fully. In general, it feels like there's a lot of missing information and inconsistencies; hopefully the sections will help you develop the article more fully. Here's some starting points:
What subspecies is native to Asia? Which have been introduced to South America? Does the European subspecies exhibit such agressive invasiveness in N. America as it shows in its native Europe?
What environments could it potentially thrive in? Does it withstand frost? Is it a perennial? Annual? Does it flower? When / how? Picture? What is its range in Europe? Asia? S. America? What are the biological limits on its range?
Biology of plant in general could be greatly expanded; also, a more thorough discussion of its stinging organs (a diagram would be especially helpful here). How does the plant grow? Propagate? How big is it? Is any animal resistant to its sting? Does it affect other plants?
Not sure on the appropriateness of including a recipe (others have well-developed opinions on this; I'll let them step in on the issue)
Would like to see more historical context on uses. What is it believed to cure as an herbal remedy? What cultures use it that way? How long ago did they start doing it? Have any modern medicines been developed based on / using nettles? Dietary supplements? Are the uses based on the stinging property, or in spite of it?
Of course, the facts need to be accurate, which it sounds from Matt's comment above that there may be some questions on. Sources sources sources. A pain in the neck, but vital when there is a disputed or commonly mistaken fact. I think the article has a lot of potential, but there's lots left to write! Bantman 06:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
For some time now, I have the feeling that this article is ready for WP:FAC. Some peer review however would be extremely welcome. — mark✎ 20:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it's an excellent article. I'll look over it carefully, and I invite others to help. Mtrisk 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This has become quite a long and informative article and I'd like to see it achieve the quality needed for a featured article some day. --Kaizersoze 03:34, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
This article needs a complete rewrite. I have tried to discuss this with the user who "protects" the page, but there is little give. Topics are all over the place; this tries to sound like a PR piece (there are accolades interspersed the article) rather then an entry into an encyclopedia. I posted an alternative in the dicussion session, but the protector can't seem to seperate themselves from the writing process. Can anyone lend a hand?--[[User:Stude62|"user: stude62"]] 21:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am one of the users that Stude62 mentions. I am surprised to see this "complaint". I have no problem whatsoever with reorganizing the sentences to make an article with better mechanics. However, Stude62 seems to be willing to just delete stuff and hasn't added anything to it, yet (except for some bizarre church references). So, that to me seems unacceptable.
Here is what I posted to the OWU's discussion page to him: The changes that you suggest, i.e. reorganizing the mechanics of paragraphs and rephrasing the what's already there to shorten the number of words is fine. I really like how you rephrased them. Go ahead and make such changes that reduce the number of words...as long as you do not remove information without discussing such intentions here first.
Also, I don't know why you think that the man on the bike picture is from a recruitment catalogue?!? Can you point which one? Name, etc? I'd love to see it there because this picture is a personal one so there is no way what you are saying is true :-)
Your example with the radio station is brilliant. Add these things too the article if you are interested in them as a reader. So far, I haven't seen you add any information, though...about things that you would like to see.
?--[[User:Rananim|"user:Rananim"]] 20:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Needs a definite look at its structure. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This does not need a look, it has just gone through a major rewrite and the community will whip it into shape in time. This article is also unlikely to become a featured article, even then. Ta bu should make constructive criticisms instead of a fly by judgement, without historical context.--Silverback 01:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And Silverback would do well to not take my listing of it on peer review as an attack, but as a general request for looking at it by the rest of the community. The article's structure currently reads like a debate, not to mention that is reads like a big bulleted list, so has a poor style. If that's not a reason to put it on peer review, I don't know what is. As for the assertion that it will never be likely to become a featured article... whyever not? It seems that even Silveback believes that the article needs improvement, which is part of peer review. Oh, incidently, my request to look at the structure, while brief, is constructive criticism. I'm asking for that to be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are wrong about bulleted lists, they are much more readable that long comma separated and conjunction joined sentences, and are easier to edit as new items arise, especially when items in the bulleted lists also have dependent clauses requiring commas.--Silverback 00:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not wrong about bulleted lists. For those who don't understand the topic, they are unclear, confusing, and offputting. They certainly have been for me. For those who know about the topic, they might be OK. We don't specifically cater for those people however. My advise is to turn those bullet point into prose, because those bullet points look terrible. The proof of the pudding? Flip open any newspaper, magazine, book, encyclopedia or text book and you will see bullet points only very rarely. We should do no less. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
White space is more expensive in print media than on the internet. Bullets are especially useful for lists, because it is easier to see where each entry in the list begins, and thus to check whether the one you have in mind is present or to quickly skip those you are already familiar with. Prose is more serial and less random access. Your analysis doesn't hold water.--Silverback 13:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then maybe you should consult with David Spiegel, a professional designer. He states (and I agree with him) that bullet points are bad design. However, it is your own analysis that fails. I would suggest you look at almost every one of our featured articles for good examples of writing style. Bullet points are good for those who know their topic well, they are not good for detailed explanations. Bullet points should be used sparingly, if at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Not only does it need a look (–esp– following a rewrite, always), it is clear that any objection to this is rooted in a highly distorted understanding of what Peer Review is, and what role it should serve within the collaborative editorial process of Wikipedia. I cannot think of a single article I have been involved in where I would not welcome Peer Review; future articles, too. It's an impossibility because I (and I argue, anyone) should welcome it — it's supposed to be a good thing, a useful mechanism. As for the article, the problems identified by Tbsd are ones I noticed, too. Specifically, I am not in favour of the ongoing excess in bullet use. I also find the writing style lacking and overeditorializing at times. I applaud the removal of the section title: A test of disengeniousness for those promoting ID that took place since this Peer Review notice was issued. It is noteworthy, by extension, that the article itself states that "[t]o date, the intelligent design movement has succeeded at publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington." (!)
I am not familliar with ID, but I accept a lot of the criticisms of it as exhibited in the article (in fact, some could be made more poignant). Additionally, Dembski confuses the issue by using "complex" as most people would use "improbable" is a peculiar sentence that needs to be rephrased (at the very least, it's bad form and should say 'said to confuse'). What I would like to see a more clear exposition of is the ID metaphysic's (un-humble, un-graceful, and rather philosphically vulgar, I think) most pressing internal contradiction: that, at some point, any ID'r was a priori existing, i.e. God, yet according to ID itself, breaking this creationist succession should be viewed as impossible (i.e. this naturally-improbable complex system, God, would need to be created via ID to exist, too; and likewise for God's ID'r, God2, ad infinitum). Heh, that this is not a particularly inteligent design for an ontological theory is a gross understatement, imnsho. What was I not talking about? El_C 23:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, read the descriptive paragraph for this page. This article is not anywhere near finished, and has just been through a major rewrite. I would state that it qualifies for "needs attention", if it weren't getting attention. The community is (are?) peers too. However one looks at it, the interloper put this request on the wrong page.--Silverback 00:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but the "interloper" did no such thing. I am asking for attention and for comment on this article peer review, the purpose of this page. I don't understand why you are getting so defensive! I'm not saying your work stinks, I'm saying that we need to get further assistance from outside editors. Peer review is the perfect place for this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No? So this was an incomplete rewrite, or a rewrite for an incomplete article then? No, a rewrite of an article whose talk page archive go as far back as 2002 is, in fact, a good candidate for Peer Review. El_C
No!, such characteristics do not make it an article that meets this standard "For pages that are close to Featured Article status", the "needs attention" page would be appropriate, if it weren't still getting plenty of attention.--Silverback 14:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What do other think on the issue of whether this article should contain a detailed list of, arguably non-notable, products produced by the company? TigerShark 02:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why not? The company made them, and the company is notable enough to have an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But shouldn't all of the information that is included in an encyclopedia be of encyclopedic value itself, not just related to something of encyclopedic value? I wonder what rules we should use to draw the line.
There is also the issue of duplication of information and keeping one source in sync with the other. With the issue of Products, there is already a link on the page that will take the reader to iRiver's product page. Do we need to duplicate this information on the page? TigerShark 13:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say ditch the products. The list is already out-of-date and would require constant updating by Wikipedians. The company is much better equipped to handle that on their own website, so a link to the product page would suffice. Second thought: OR, rewrite the products section so it doesn't read as one big advertisement: try to pick out some notable products and describe what's special about them.--Plek 20:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What have we got to do to get this to featured article status? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some criticality. It's not as grossly hagiographic as Mariah Carey, but it's not far off - David Gerard 22:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also some discussion of, as they say, "the music" would be great. Hyacinth 23:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to see it get there one day. I've done quite a bit on that article too, including a rewrite to try to make it less like a Fanzine, which was a fair comment then, but I think a less fair comment now. I also think the music itself is discussed sufficiently and with a degree of criticism - plus there are links to every album. I don't know what else needs to be said there. Perhaps critical comments that can actually be sourced (critical comments by definition being both positive and negative) My suggestion is to go back over previous featured articles such as Johnny Cash (in my opinion a good article to use as a template), and Duran Duran (which I don't think is a good article but that's my opinion), and even some other biographical ones such as Lottie Dod. Examine the type of language used, sources cited, criticisms etc. If you can come up with something that looks related to one of the other successful candidates, any future nomination may have a better chance. Rossrs 02:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
just to clarify. I think the Duran Duran article is good, what I meant to say is that it's not helpful in trying to fix Kylie Minogue, because it's really similar in its style and content - and yet it got to be a Featured Article - how, I don't know. Only thing different is that it's got a bunch of sources listed, but KM doesn't..... Rossrs 03:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Considering the other Legend of Zelda articles about the games conform to a certain standard, I'm submitting that one here to see what experts think. I wrote about 95% of the article today. Any criticism and suggestions welcome. Phils 18:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I started this early in my edits on Wikipedia. I'm no expert on his, but how do we fix this up? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Try expanding the lead section so it summarizes the article. Also, I would like to see more included on his private life. Mgm|(talk) 12:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Moved a section to this article and overhauled it. I'd appreciate comments and constructive criticism. --Circeus 16:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The information is great (especially the Vowel part), but the arrangement could be improved.
It would be nice to be able to see at a glance which vowels are most common (or occur in all dialects) and which ones are more exceptional. Also, an arrangement like the IPA vowel table helps greatly to get an impression of the vowel system of a language. The current table should be kept, I think, but maybe another one (or two, separating oral and nasal V's) could be added, cf. Nafaanra_language#Vowels (which is of course a much simpler vowel system).
Some visual distinction between oral and nasal vowels would clear things up as well.
I would join the approximant row with the other consonants, and move all footnotes to below the table.
I'm missing information about the distribution of phonemes (except for some notes on allophony), particularly in the Consonants section. Do all phonemes occur freely in every position? What consonant clusters are allowed? Etc.
What role does nasalization play — what is its relation to nasal consonants?
Any hints on what else I should add to the main article would be appreciated. In the history section, what do you think needs to be fixed on that? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Intro for the history article needs tweaking; and the Corruption section there is current, and should be in the main article (maybe under Politics). For the main, maybe there's more to be said about its culture, economy, or any particular significance? Rd232 18:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This failed WP:FAC once, and I think I've addressed the problems and want to put it up again. I'd like your input. Bits of the history are tricky to document in an NPOV manner, particularly the X.Org/XFree86/Packard stoush in 2003. The main outstanding requirement is how X extensions work, as a missing section of the 'technical details' - David Gerard 17:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've contributed quite a lot of this article in most areas (bar his European policy) but am concerned the article is rather single authored in places. Also it's a bit long and could use a bit of condensing. Timrollpickering 15:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article was a fac several months ago, but was rejected while we were still working on it (part of WikiProject Trains) before all comments/objections could be addressed. As one of the contributors, I feel it would benefit from WP-PR before resubmission as fac. This article should have broad appeal to WP readers, including young people and families and may offer an educational opening of a reader's interest into other WikiProject Trains articles. From what I can see, with the exception of William N. Page (which is about one of the founders of the Virginian Railway), we have never had a featured article about Trains (yet). All help would be appreciated. Thanks. Vaoverland 01:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a general article about auto trains? These things are hardly limited to the US. If there is, it should be linked; if not, it should be created, even as a stub to resolve the question of what it would be called. Also, I think the intro is too long; I'd just have the first para above the TOC. Paragraphs are a bit short - feels bitty. Too many pictures - remove some; maybe try left-aligning some to disperse among the text. Finally, why is it in the "Defunct railroad companies" category? It's still running isn't it? Rd232 20:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Auto Train is an Amtrak service. Auto-Train Corporation, now defunct, originally but the idea into motion. This article should not be in defunct railroad companies category. As far as the principal writers know, it is a unique service in the U.S. and perhaps anywhere else. Amtrak's Auto Train service apparently works economically due to these factors:
1. There is a sufficient volume of customers.
2. The customers are willing to accept a single departure and a single destination point.
3. The customers willing to pay a premium price in order to avoid driving and have the use of their own car at destination.
4. The customers do not choose to travel via commercial airliner despite lower costs and travel times offered.
Thanks for the review and tips. Vaoverland 18:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
It's not unique. I have friends who've used such a service in Germany (though now defunct I think); I'm fairly sure it still exists in France. Certainly the Eurostar service (UK-France) has it. Rd232 11:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The guaranteed objection it would get at FAC is that it has no references. Print references would be ideal, see what your library has. Reliable online sources that you have used for information could be formatted as a reference as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources. 2. I think the lead section is the right length, as they are generally recommended to be 2-3 paragraphs. 3. The flow of the text is generally choppy as there are too many very short paragraphs. Either expand them into full paragraphs on their own or merge them with others. - Taxman 19:51, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, auto trains through the Channel Tunnel are run by the tunnel company itself and have special terminals at either end of the tunnel (Eurostar is the name of the passenger trains London/Paris or Brussels, a separate company). There are others like it in Europe, mainly Switzerland, all of which are different (rather more links in motorways) from the long-distance auto trains the article is about. Maybe "car carriers" could have a separate section in the article.
There is a useful article to be written here but perhaps Amtrak's Auto Train isn't the right hook to hang it on (as a survivor, it ought to be in there, of course). There are still large numbers of these in Europe (although only one in England) and always have been -- summary listings in the Thomas Cook European Timetable. Are there any in Japan or India, I wonder? (given the state of the latter's roads, I'd have thought there would be a good market for them). Australia & South Africa may also have them. Canada?
- LennieStar 20:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
The name of the article has been changed to more accurately reflect a focus on Amtrak's current Auto Train route and service amd the history preceeding it. I do not know enough about the other similar services on other continents to write a section about them to include in this article. Vaoverland 02:28, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
This article was much criticised before, with even Jimbo Wales coming in to comment negatively. The article had a NPOV dispute tag for some time. Now it has been improved coniderably and stabilised. It needs fact checking; location of specific sources, language verification etc. The section Legal investigations of Berlusconi could especially do with some work. Your comments and/or help appreciated. Azikala 23:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've done some work on this over the past couple of days. The original article felt quite miserable for such a mainstream game character. The incarnations section still needs some work (which I'm volunteering to do) but I'd like a few reactions and opinion on where this article has been going and what should be added/corrected. Thanks.--Phils 19:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This might sound silly, but isn't it odd or NPOV to call Link courageous or fierce ? He is controlled by the player so he is what the person playing him tells him to do. Otherwise nice job. BrokenSegue 23:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure calling link courageous is a violation of the NPOV: it is made quite clear that courage is a very important attribute of Link throughout the series (he is the bearer of the Triforce of Courage), as opposed to simply being strong or powerful. Moreover, while the Legend of Zelda series do feature high freedom of movement, but they do not really make use of branching story lines, so in the end, no matter how bad the player is, once he has completed the game, the result is the same. Wether a 10-12 year old boy single-handedly defeating myriads of monsters is worthy of being called 'courageous' or 'fierce' is indeed subject to every person's personal opinion. However, I think we can safely say that the games give strong hints that the makers wanted Link to be seen as such. I'll leave it as is, but if it really bothers someone, they can change the article so as to reflect the fact that Link's courage, while hinted at in the game, is subjective.
One-sided article that presents a theory in an uncritical or supportive light. 119 19:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think that it presents the theory fairly clearly and it's well structured. Adding a little graphic that shows at a glance how the model works would be the cherry on top. MikeCapone 22:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Recently undergone extensive restructuring and extension. Would appreciate people highlighting any gaps in the article. violet/riga(t) 17:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No lead section and references. Otherwise seems fine after a cursory examination. Johnleemk | Talk 17:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to be closing in on featured level. Can anyone check it out and see if there are any gaping errors? Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Intro needs work; the second and third para should be elsewhere ("Commercial success" or some such). A more genuinely introductory couple of lines are needed, summarising the main points of the article. Structure needs work: separate film stuff (cast+crew, title change, role of Gibson in making film happen [which needs expanding], list of Gospel refs present/not) from Reaction (which should be major sections Religious organisations/Film critics/Public) and (probably) from Antisemitism Debate. "Further social criticism" merge with Antisemitism or clarify distinction. Rd232 20:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just a quick one (I'm tired!). Structure needs work. Half of the page is a list. It won't get through FAC like that. That list needs to be turned into prose: people just don't read lists!!! also, cast and crew should go down the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am the only one to have contributed to this article - I want some review and some help adding essential information. I'm not expecting much help though because I'm sure most people will say it's "not notable" (a silly argument I think). Brianjd 10:09, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Television show titles take italics. RickK 22:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
I am requesting additional sources of information for this story, also I want to know if we can do anything to write it from a NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say adding a See also section with NAMBLA is very NPOV. I welcome any attempts to make it more NPOV though. --SPUI 10:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The GNAA has nothing to do with gays or niggers, and does not restrict membership to American citizens. Other than that, the name says it all :-) --Carnildo 10:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's back on VfD for the fifth time. Can we say "abuse of process"? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's just a troll, I see people anonymously posting that crap on Slashdot all of the time, nothing they can do there but mod it down as -1 Troll. I would suggest some kind of filter really. - Polarism 09:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ummm... I don't follow. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We've done a major rewrite. IMO it's much better sourced now. Can we have suggestions on further ways of fixing this? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My first attempt at rewriting a major article over. This was listed on candidate for featured articles before I managed to do a rewrite, which received a number of objections. Any sharp observers willing to help out? Will be greatly appreciated. :) - Mailer Diablo 23:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have been adding a summary to this, which I feel is too detailed. Or is there such a thing as a too detailed summary? Plus, is the correct name a summary or a synopsis? Please treat all three as questions.
Lee S. Svoboda 21:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will start somewhat less topically by noting that I am, personally, quite fond of this novel. In answer to your question, both summary and synopsis intimate concision and overview – for our purposes, we should view the two terms as overlaping. Unfortunately, I do find the section in question to be lacking in language, grammatical cohesiveness, and logical flow. These are areas where, I think, it could be significantly improved. Try to aim for clarity, avoiding convoluted sentences, for example: "...doctor who came from London, the only good docter Colin had had, had thought Colin..." I tend to view the citations as being out of place, and likely you should rethink the approach of including these as such. There seems to be an overemphasis placed on the attempt to reconsruct the actual narrative esp. through dialogue. Thus, I think you should aim towards a more objective and detached exposition. Try to condense major developments in a manner which is less emotionally-involved (esp. with the characters in the story).
Hope this helps, good luck with the revision. El_C
My concern regards the changes I've made to the W.C. Handy page. Upon my observation, I first thought the page was plagiarized and hence very well may have violated copyright. However, I was wrong. Yet, the information contained on the original page did not reference any source or citation, save for a brief, excerpted online version of a biography which was (and remains) in no wise exemplary. As a long-time resident of the area of Handy's birth, I have done research into his life and music. Motivated by what I perceived to be a poorly written article which was little better than a stub, I completely rewrote it, citing sources, and adding external links to current events that celebrate and commemorate his work. Referencing the previous article, there was (and which I incorprated in a revision) a reference to some of his works which I felt though only somewhat appropriate, would be better suited in a musicology article. They mentioned only one person's opinion - the writer - again, with no source citation of any kind. In my complete rewrite, I referenced the subject's autobiography, and several independent sources which are included in the external links. There is, in my estimation, a more fully complete picture of the breadth and character of the subject, and one which the casual visitor/reader would find fascinating. One example is that he started his own highly successful publishing company in an era of aparteid, and was widely acclaiamed by all. Though that detail was not necessarily of itself important, in context of the time, it was. And, seeking to present and offer understanding of the subject in context of his era and the current era was my objective. Please take a look at the article(s) and share your thoughts with me. Realize also however, that some minor formatting issues may be present, for which others more experienced will hopefully and gladly correct. The main thrust of my concern is for content, not mark-up.K. L. Bardon 18:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Nicely done. I had no comments. Revmachine21 13:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My first full article, I'm not sure about the format. If anyone could give me some pointers how to improve the format, I'd be a happy Wiki. I'm pretty confident about the writing as such though. SauronMaiar 21 Dec 2004 17.10 (UTC)
I will make some verb tense modifications directly to the article. As written, she seems still alive. Revmachine21 12:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article would be improved by the following, pictures of Etty, picture of her momument and or picture of the school named after her. She seems like an interesting person. I also added a couple of additional links. If you know of more external links, it would be nice to include them. Revmachine21 13:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Lots of people have contirbuted to improve this article significantly, but I think we may all be bellringers closely involved with the subject, and I fear it may have become overly esoteric for the general audiance. Can anyone who isnt a bellringer still understand it?? Any other comments/sugestions also gratefully recived. Iain 14:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not a bellringer myself, even though I'm responsible for much of the current article (I did a pretty thorough edit a few months ago, including a rewrite of the intro ¶ and a big expansion of the "mathematics of bellringing" section.) One of my principal concerns in this article (as in all) was to explain everything in a logical order — my biggest worry was that my ignorance might lead me into some silly mistake! (So I was glad to get some peer review by bellringers to clean up my contributions.) Doops 05:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've been working hard on this for the past week, and hope this can be the first featured U.S. state article (either this of Hawaii). Suggestions or comments? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 07:10, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think that your article is very good. I lived in Vermont for some time, and I know a bit about it. Just trying to think of things that you could discuss... One thing is the act 250 controversies. Basicly, the act requires environmental review of large projects. Some people wanted to build a large mall in Willison, just outside of Burlington. It was prevented, on the grounds that the mall would destroy the property tax base of Burlington (a significant piece of which was retail stores on Church Street), and therefore indirectly damage the environment as Burlington would no longer be able to pay for various governmental services. (Since then, much has changed, and Big Box stores (Home Depot, Wall Mart) have opened in Willison).
In contrast to it's "green" reputation. Much of the economy (in the North West part of Vermont) is dependent on a few large employers: The University of Vermont, which includes a teaching hospital, and IBM manufacturing facility, and a factory which makes equipment for mounting machine guns on military helicopters (it had been a GE business). Morris 16:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
First of all, the largest employer in Vermont is the state government. Secondly, and I think this is important for inclusion, is that Vermont was either nominated or considering nomination to the National Historic Register in order to deter "box stores," especially Walmart, to which Vermonters have a notably strong aversion to...I think that relates to the act 250? As does the growth of condos...I know that now, out-of-state residents with part-time homes in Vermont have to pay prime tax rates for the privelege. So this is important, I think.
As for the dairy industry, I would like to see something about the "morph" to micro-cheese dairies. If you do a Google, there was an article in the NYT last spring about this. Actually, I have a list of about 12 in Vermont. It's a growth industry and a well respected one too.
Finally, as a historian, I would be willing to help add some important (at least I think so, even if I am a flatlander...) tidbits. Ethan & Ira did not fare well after the Revolution, and that part of their story is fascinating. "18-something-and-almost-froze-to-death" is legendary, and it later resulted in that wave of religious revivalism throughout the state, some of which were incredibly bizaare. There's a book at my library and I can find it for you. I love this page. I always hated the page on my own town, because it just looked like a census report, so I think this is a great and incredibly ambitious start.
Keep up the good work! let me know if I can help in any way! Always room for another trip to the local library! Best regards, allie 02:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This entire article is has been written from the POV that the authorship that the Pauline epistles wasn't Paul. This is POV. As we encourage NPOV writing could an editor who knows something of this subject please look at this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've been expanding this with knowledge off the top of my head. I'd welcome a non-expert looking over it to say what bits need explaining too non-experts, what bits should be developed further and what else should be written about the subject. I'd also welcome an expert both commenting on the above, and on what I've gotten wrong. All thoughts/comments gratefully received. jguk 23:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe the article makes lots of unverified claims, which need to be verified. It also incomplete since it does not provide the Arab side of the issue. roozbeh 15:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
My article on this current U.S. television series has links, bibliography, and a short synopsis. Any thoughts? PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
I translated this from a German article (de:Ibn Khaldun) which was featured quality. But looking at some of the external links I'm concerned about some contradictions over the middle part of his life (lots of intrigues), and possibly variation in name spellings. Anyone with an interest in the subject? Rd232 12:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I recently found this article, and it looks pretty complete. I added some pictures in the proper areas, and was wondering if anyone else thought this had Featured Article potential. If not, please edit/comment away. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918talk]] 05:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can we have people comment on this article? It's just been through a major battle amongst several parties (including myself) and this is what we now have. It basically needs NPOVing and general cleanup. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Turmeric's alleged anti-cancer properties, the ones mentioned in the article, also got a mention in the Bad Science Awards... [3] Please review. Etz Haim 09:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Added TotallyDisputed comment to the top. This definitely needs editing, by someone who knows what they're talking about. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918talk]] 22:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Came over this page as I was reading about the german invation of Norway in 1940. Rather disapointed at lack of content and a couple of factuall errors, I spendt some time expanding and - in my eyes - making it better. Now, if someone could look over it with some fresh eyes and fix all the things I'm sure I forgotten, I'll be very gratefull. I'll see if I can get time to work more on it myself as well. WegianWarrior 12:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit and wikification. Someone else will have to check the facts. -- ALoan(Talk) 12:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll try to help out as well. Being a Norwegian, the subject matter is quite relevant to me in the first place* (+ I'm a WWII history 'nut'...). (* but note, of course, that I'm always striving to keep articles NPOV regardless of any personal relevance) --Wernher 15:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've put in some initial effort. More to follow; the book by Binder & Schlünz is a superb reference. (A pity it's not translated into English. Hmm, an opportunity to earn a little money from my writing, perhaps, contrary to my present wikipediholism...) --Wernher 18:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I put this together from scraps of other stuff. I can't get it to cohere properly. If anyone (particularly chemists) could take a look at it, I'd be grateful. -- The Anome 10:14, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Was FILLED with POV and unwarranted editorializing. I've tried to clean it up. I'd love a second opinion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:48, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
You did a good job. Elf | Talk 02:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looks good now.
The page is too large. Current size is 48kb. Wikipedia reccomends <30 kb and 32 max. Why don't you précis the article, and add large chunks of material to related articles? Also consider cutting down on the ToC. Its simply too long. Nichalp 20:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Please, someone review the Wiki article on the dietary supplement Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM). The current page content reads almost like stock sales material for a supplement vendor. Here is a key segment from the conclusion:
"This remarkable nutrient has many valuable applications to human health. The basic science to back up these applications is well established and the clinical science is emerging."
In fact, the current Wikipedia page on MSM has no independent reference links at the bottom of the page. I did basic Google and Medline searches on Methylsulfonylmethane and found the following info:
(1) The #1 Google result is from quackwatch.com. Their lengthy discussion of MSM casts great suspicion on any health claims, and thus by comparison one has to wonder why the Wikipedia page contains mainly pro-MSM statements and few if any real caveats. For example, why doesn't the Wiki page mention the 10/2000 FDA action against Karl Loren to stop his extravagant therapeutic claims for MSM.
(2) Medline has few articles on Methylsulfonylmethane. However, one particularly disturbing 2002 study that came up was this one: "Accumulation of methylsulfonylmethane in the human brain: identification by multinuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy." The abstract ends on this sombre note: "Appearance of MSM in significant concentrations in the human brain indicates ready transfer across the intact blood-brain barrier, of a compound with no known medical benefits."
In short, I strongly believe that Wikipedia users are being presented unreviewed, highly biased information about MSM. -- 205.179.101.138
Added TotallyDisputed message at the top. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918talk]] 21:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have added dubious tags to several sections and have requested feedback on the talk page. I have also removed a whole section called "MSM myths" because that shouldn't be there at all (we do not do original research). I am going to wait for a fortnight for feedback and fixups on those sections. If nothing is said, then all of those sections are getting removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seems like it is is becoming an awesome article and well on its way to becoming featured. Do people agree? If so, I'll put it in the featured article candidates.--Alsocal 20:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Um, it has significant errors of punctuation and usage in the first two sentences. I'll read the rest, too.
It's also kind of dense. For it to be a feature, it should have an introductory section that provides enough context for the average reader to understand why what follows is important. I spruced up some language to make it more readable. I'm not sure it's ready for prime-time.
There was no lead section, just a section called "Introduction". I've removed introduction and made it the lead section, but its still not right. With the lead section, its important to summarise the main body of the article, and also to highlight interesting information.
The entire article seems to be of the history of Korean Buddhism. Probably there should be an article History of Buddhism and a section called History that is in summary form. Other aspects like what they beleive should be in its own section. It's possible that's the introduction, but lots more should be expanded.
I'm rather afraid it needs lots of work. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
