This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
For the archived peer review of this article see
Dogpatch USA Peer Review Archive 1
This article is near feature status. Only a few problems with sentence structure, reference, and may be a few italics problems. Hoping it will stay here a week or two and then become featured.--
The_stuart
13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I decided to try to expand and clean up this article with the goal of one day getting it featured. Aside from climate (which I am unsure of the proper place to find that information) is there anything else that needs attention? Pentawing 01:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll review in depth if the above are taken care off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
According to the Fed Aviation Facilities Directory, the elevation of the runway at Ann Arbor Airport (ARB) is 839 feet. That is probably as good an elevation as any, since the terrain in Ann Arbor varies due to the river valley.
Here's some economic information from Crain’s Detroit Business from its most recent survey of the largest public and private employers in Washtenaw County ranked by full-time employees as of January, 2004.
The top 20 of these employers are listed below
The largest employers in Ann Arbor include the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Hospital. The largest employers in Ypsilanti include Eastern Michigan University, Trinity Health, and General Motors. The number three employer in the county, Visteon Corporation, is Ford Motor Company’s largest supplier and Visteon’s highly-paid employees are protected by UAW contracts.
Washtenaw County’s Largest Employers, 2004
Rank Company Name Employees Type of business 1 University of Michigan 15,594 Public university 2 University of Michigan Health Centers 8,569 Hospital & health center 3 Visteon Corporation 5,910 Automotive supplier 4 Ford Motor Co. 5,000 Automobile manufacturer 5 General Motors Corp. 4,739 Automobile manufacturer 6 Trinity Health 4,503 Health care system 7 U.S. Government 2,607 Federal government 8 Pfizer Inc. 2,600 Pharmaceutical company 9 Ann Arbor Public Schools 2,130 Public school district 10 Eastern Michigan University 2,088 Public University 11 State of Michigan 1,791 State government 12 Borders Group Inc. 1,406 Book & music retailer 13 Washtenaw County government 1,388 Municipal government 14 ProQuest Co. 980 Information databases 15 Standard Federal Bank, N.A. 934 Mortgage and financial services 16 City of Ann Arbor 820 City government 17 DTE Energy Co. 678 Energy company 18 Ypsilanti Public Schools 658 Public school district 19 Chelsea Community Hospital 639 Community hospital 20 Chrysler Group 564 Automobile manufacturer
Also of note is that Ann Arbor is the Headquarters of Flint Inc., the worlds largest privately held manufacturer of ink with reported revenues of USD$1.471 billion. Flint Ink is listed by Crain’s Detroit Business among Michigan's top ten privately held companies, and by Forbes among the top 220 Private Companies in the US. I don't work there, but it is an oft overlooked Ann Arbor Company which is interesting, considering its size)
Economic stability is provided, to a great extent, by the county’s two universities - The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti. These facilities are major employers which are not as economically sensitive to fluctuations in automotive demand as are industries found in the Detroit area. Recently emphasis on high technology research and development expansion has been a priority of the MEDC and other NGO organizations. The universities have attracted a variety of companies in technology industries in recent history.
There are many significant research-oriented high technology firms in the area are including - Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Control Laboratory - Pfizer Global R&D - General Dynamics (former ERIM), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Proquest - Terumo Cardiovascular Systems (formerly a division of 3M) - U of M Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)
The University of Michigan ranked first in research dollars spent by public universities in fiscal year 1990, with much of these funds devoted to biomedical developments funding from the NIH.
Take this information and place it in the article as you see fit. Since you're working on it, it is probably good to have it in your style. Keep up the work and let me know if you want to catch up fro coffee at Zolas to talk about Wikipedia some morning. My username has a lot to do with my name. Best...-- Ronreed 17:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Note: I am not the one disputing any part of this article ( Operating Thetan). I am just trying to bring it to the state that it would be in had the procedures at Wikipedia:Disputed statement been followed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
After having removed one's own reactive mind and thus attaining the state of Clear, one then goes on to remove one's Body Thetans (each of which has its own reactive mind) through Dianetic auditing.
This comment about removing body thetans is innacurate, as if removing body thetans is the only thing done after clear -- moved from comment made inside article by AI ( talk · contribs) in this edit.
This was nominated for Featured Article last December (see nomination). It got 6 support votes and 6 object votes. Many of the objections have been resloved, including adding pictures of clean Rubik's Cubes, expanding the lead section, etc. I'd like this article to be prepared next time it goes to WP:FAC. Coffee 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic images; a major improvement over the last FAC. I like all three of them, though it might be better to move the one with the tilted side to the Solutions section and give a caption "The Rubik's Cube being solved" or something. I also still think that a dissected cube would be really interesting to show. The "Rubik's Cube as a mathematical group" section still sounds (and looks) like a graduate level paper. I'd also suggest moving the Patrick Bossert reference to the history section, I think it fits better there. Inline citations would be a real plus, and please, cut down on the external links. One or two online/software simulations is enough, one or two solution pages, the official records page, only one link to speedcubing.com, and maybe one link to a patent website. 8-10 links would be more than enough. -- Spangineer (háblame) 14:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Article needs a photo, or diagram, of a disassembled cube. Some artwork patterns (alphabet characters, checkerboard, etc.) might be nice, too.-- J-Wiki 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be subject to much bias and not entirely academic language. Some parts of the article have been expunged for irrelevancy and bias, however the rest of the language is more than I am willing to deal with. Moreover, parts which are relevant to the word shaitan, not to mention scholarly, have been removed by previous editors for no apparently academic reason. Thus restoration and clean up of this article is requiring more than I am capable of providing, so I would like to request that some individuals who are capable go over this article. 68.163.3.152 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I put this article in for peer review because it needs a lot of info and it is a current event. It is rather sparse right now.
I've been editing this article over the past few days. I'd like your opinion on how to improve it, since I feel it has the potential to be a featured article in the future. Manitoban 19:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
hey manitoban let me know who you are, i live in winkler and may be able to assist with this
I've created this template as a navigational box for use on major diamond-related articles. While diamond was being nominated (successfully) on FAC some months ago, there were some complaints that links to important sub-articles were hard to find; the "See also" list was also stripped from the article. I think of this template as a prettied-up "See also" list that can easily be put on the relevant articles as an aid to readers interested in reading more on given subtopics, and navigating the relevant articles. I should also mention that the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured topics inspired me to link the main articles on the topic together in a cohesive way.
However, I'm not sure if using a template as a nav box in this manner is a "good thing", a "bad thing", or a "thing that nobody cares about". So I turn to you, faithful PR editors, for input. I would love to hear your feelings on the general use of this type of template and the specific usefulness of this one. Any edits or suggestions regarding the template itself (format and/or content) would, of course, also be appreciated. Many thanks. Bantman 18:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I find this a good article about a certain type of garment. The only things missing is perhaps some more notes as to the history of the garment and about manufactoring. John Anderson 14:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I did some major rewrites on this, but I'm fairly new and don't know how much more work it needs before it could (possibly) get up to FA status. Any small grammar/spelling fixes that I missed would be appreciated :). GregAsche 19:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This article is the Australian collaboration of the fortnight, an Australian drive to improve the article to FAC standard. Undoubtedly it's not there yet, but I'm not sure what else it needs to reach such a lofty standard. Article presently features a hand-drawn map and references. -- fuddlemark 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The article as is stands, with the exception of the first paragraph (Background) to which I helped, is almost entriely original research. The Source given to back up statements in fact state the opposite. For example the source given to back up the statement: "Obviously this is a vision of Heaven that is more likely to appeal to men. Eternally virgin dark-eyed Houris are unlikely to appeal to many women" actually says "The life of women in Jannah will be as pleasant and happy as the life of men. Allah is not partial to any gender. He created both of them and He will take care of both of them according to their needs and desires. Let us all work to achieve the Jannah and then, in sha’ Allah, we will find there what will satisfy all of us fully." - It needs to be severly NPOVed to boot. It ignores the "Science of hadith" and selectively picks Hadees that suits the cause, ignores the isnad and context, and suggests that that is all the source that is needed. Help Needed here badly! -- Irishpunktom\ talk 15:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I've been working away at this article in its corner of Wikipedia over the past couple of months, and have included information on the actress's roles in the films she has been in, quotes from critics reviewing her work as well from as the actress herself, and images that relate to the accompanying sections in the article. However, nobody else has touched the article (apart from minor edits), and I would really appreciate the opinions of people here on what they think of the article in the state it is in now, and what they think could be done to improve it. Thank you in advance. Extraordinary Machine 03:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is about the transport and electricity company synonymous with the city of
Mumbai (
Bombay). Would like to know if there is any angle not covered. (PS At this moment, I've not added the references, will do so. Kindly ignore). Will also add some images soon.
=Nichalp
«Talk»= 15:28, 25 August, 2005 (UTC)
A profile of the Republican Member of Congress-elect, chosen in the special election in Ohio on August 2 that attracted national attention. Article has photos, maps, references. I'd really like to see this make featured status by September 6, when she'll be sworn in. It needs a good proofreading to start--I've looked at it so much, my eyes have glazed over and I know I'm not seeing problems. I am also submitting for peer review my article on the losing candidate, Paul Hackett. (See Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Hackett/archive1 for that.) PedanticallySpeaking 19:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
User:Nrets and I have put a lot of work into this article. We think it may be featured article-worthy. We would appreciate wiki experts to comment on the layout, style, and graphics; writers to comment on our language; laypeople to comment on the level of comprehension (is it too technical?); and neuroscientists/anatomists to comment on the accuracy. Semiconscious ( talk • home) 22:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Semiconscious - I think that this article is very close to featured quality, speaking from a reasonably informed scientist's perspective. I think this is a model for a well-written, technical article on neuroanatomy for Wikipedia. I appreciate the fascinating bits of information you throw in, like: "patients suffering archicerebellar lesions carry identification cards indicating the nature of their medical condition so as to avoid suspicion of public drunkenness by the police" and the clear writing in the dysfunctions section. Also, the pictures are great: clear schematics, well labeled, and a beautiful fluorescence image of Purkinje cells.
Great job, guys!! Mr.Bip 08:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts about this going up as a FAC? I've never done it before, and I've never seen an article like this up there, so any advice and feedback would be great. Semiconscious ( talk · home) 08:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been organizing and working on this article a bit, hoping to submit it to FAC soon. I think the section on howling would do nicely with an image, and the references could be expanded. Any suggestions?
Sango
123 23:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I have submitted this article once for a peer review, and I have decided that I will submit it again before trying to submit it to be a featured article canidate. This article has been cited 3 times by sources outside of wikipedia, and since phishing has become a big issue today, I would like to see this become a featured article. One thing that i mentioned in the talk page is that this article has too many links in the external link section. I think it needs to be cropped, but I am not sure what links should stay or go. Suggestions in that department would be useful as well.-- ZeWrestler Talk 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
nixie left a few suggestions in my talk page for the phishing article. i'm posting them here for all to see.
Other than that, the article is coming alone greatly. -- ZeWrestler Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks great -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The former featured Belgium article has been modified along the lines suggested in the preceeding review, reasons to remove the featured status, and first trial to get re-featured. In particular, history has been strongly reduced, almost all pictures have been replaced by better ones, the culture section has been re-structured and the reference style has been improved. I am expecting your comments and suggestions. Is this page now ready to be re-featured? Vb 10:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, once these are taken care of, I'll move on to more stuff. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review. Many of your comments are very useful. Others are less so. I hope your comments are first hints to a discussion and not definitive.
So I thank you once again for your suggestion and I hope you understand why I shall not implement them in their entirety. I have not the time now to make all the changes you suggested with which I agree. I'll do that tomorrow or later.
Vb 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I would ask you to have this article copyedited before I can review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think now all your remarks have been taken into account. Some editors have copyedited it and I believe one could remove the copyedit flag. Vb 13:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This article has gone through peer review before (see archive). However, I am wondering if there are further ways to improve this article to featured status. In particular, I am wondering about images since half the images have questionable copyrights. Pentawing 21:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Since I know that my last few FAC's failed due to grammar and possible POV problems, I was wondering if people would like to see if yall could help me fix these problems. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
By the combined work of a great many contributors, this article has successively evolved beyond the 33kb limit, and it is about time it had a peer review. Opinions on style, encyclopedic relevancy and references would be especially appreciated. -- Salleman 17:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Edit: Please give me your opinion as to whether I should add the 30 or so works of modern fantasy mentioned in the article to the reference list? How do I reference "the Harry Potter book series" for example? -- Salleman 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it is misguided to demand a lot of references, as most of the information on Scandinavian elves are common knowledge (at least to Scandinavians). But I am afraid that people will demand such references, since this subject is very sensitive to information from popular culture and original research. That said, I think the article is excellent.-- Wiglaf 08:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Have done a complete rewrite of article and have added references.
Very interested in any comments, particularly regarding the images. Searched every place I could think of and wasted hours of my life, searching for public domain or free images, to no avail.
Have trimmed the images down from what was there before in order to use fair use images only sparingly. I think what remains is essential, but I'd appreciate any comments about them, or any other aspect of the article. Thanks. Rossrs 14:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added lots of information on the older article, essentially re-writing it, and I think its finally up to level with WP:FA. I've think I've maintained NPOV. It may require corrections in prose and language. Please comment or edit on any mistakes. Colossus 17:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Trying to get more Belarusian stuff up to Featured content. I am not sure what yall suggest in putting in here, but since it is a national anthem, I figure you guys have a few suggestions. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I first found this article a few days after British Columbia had their referendum on it that barely failed in no small part due to a lack of voter knowledge about STV. Over the past month or so I, with the help of a few others, have been working quite heavily on it, and I'd like to get some fresh eyes to give it a good once over and make suggestions. I'm particularly interested in opinions about the articles length, as I believe it may be borderline too long and redundant in some parts - smoke em out if you spot em. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 06:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the content is very good. Two things that should be tidied up are stray sentences that should be merged into paragraphs, and incorporating the html links in text into a list of notes using Wikipedia:Footnote3. If you're worred about the length the section on counties that use STV could be move to another page and described in this article in summary style, the table of contents is very long and this would help reduce the lenght of both the article and the TOC. I don't think it is too long as is, except for the lenght of the TOC.-- nixie 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, hi - I have never engaged in Wikipedia editing before, but I noticed what may be a very minor typo: the line, "Example: in a 1,000,000 voter constituency with 4 seats, the quote would be 250,000 votes, not 200,001." I am presuming that the intent was for the word "quota" rather than the printed "quote." Hope that helps?
Prior Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1
Well it failed an FaC nomination, so I'm doing this again for some dispassionate input from people outside the Ancap/Anarchist POV debate. Saswann 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It's been expanded a lot since it was created, but there isn't as much to add, because it doesn't have the notoriety of modern books like The Giver, Lord of the Flies, and Harry Potter. Toothpaste 02:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Aguably one of the most important cases in the history of the Supreme Court of the U.S., the article on Brown has recently undergone substantial expansion. I am hoping that this is on the way to featured article status. however, I am concered that the subject of the effects and outcomes of Brown are undercovered, and that there may be too much "really, my home town isn't full of bigots" explanation of the situation in Topeka. Therefore, I humbly request peer review.... Rick Boatright 23:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, the ==Myths== page needs to be cleaned up. -- Micahbrwn 03:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, the self-congratulatory photo of Thurgood Marshall and company dates to the earliest versions of the page. Monroe Elementary, I added in order to show the "Not a dilapodated tar-paper-shack"- but you're probebly right that what I need to do is just make a "Monroe Elementary" page. what sort of cleanup of myths do you have in mind? -- Thanks Rick Boatright 03:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
ouch. You're right, but that sure feels like stepping into a Roe v. Wade tarpit. But you're right. Rick Boatright 13:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Is [2] this the sort of criticism you have in mind? I -think- I can re-work Justice Thomas position from Jenkins.... or perhaps quote his opinion. Rick Boatright 15:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Re: "cleanup of myths", I really don't know what I have in mind. To be honest, I don't think that section even belongs there... since its essentially a whole lot of what Brown isn't. Also, the listing of myths with bullet points doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps it would be better to reformat into concise (and brief) paragraphs. Something along the lines of how snopes.com debunks urban legends, perhaps. -- Micahbrwn 16:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I understand a ==References== section, and understand the idea of using footnotes to printed sources, but I think I strongly disagree that a long discussion of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote etc should be incorporated into the body of the article. Doing a reasonable job, and balancing the -as you pointed out- ample secondary literature, would require a book length text. As to the socio-political implications, that mostly happens under the various "Civil Rights" pages, _all_ of which refer to Brown. But I'm afraid I'm one of those who feel that the old 32K limit for articles was a GOOD thing, and that a CLUSTER of articles around a complex issue serves the wiki better. Rick Boatright 20:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. That I can do. as to 10 books, HA! Way way _way_ over that now. Working WINNOWING the references section before posting it.... Thanks Rick Boatright 22:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok folks, I tried to pull off a FAC, but I failed big time. Of the issues that were introduced:
I took care of the photos, so only two remain (one is GFDL and the other has been released for us to use with no problems). My pal Leo is taking care of the sales figures and the "made to order" question. I need suggestions on how to solve all of these issues and try to make this article Featured. Also, if you also wish to object to having this page being on the Front Page, make the comments on my talk page or this talk page. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
July Collaboration for the South Korean counties & cities WikiProject. Looking for advice on what should be added, subtracted, or polished in order to bring this article up to the highest standard. Thanks in advance! -- Visviva 03:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Stevey7788's comments helped me to see the disorganized state of this article. (Thanks!) I've done a general reorg and edit, and I think I have solved a lot of the cohesion issues. I'd appreciate any feedback on what more needs to be done. For instance... would it be a good idea to spin off and summarize the "History" section? -- Visviva 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is a failed FAC candidate. I believe the majority of issues have been taken care of; but to help ensure a smooth third nomination by me; I'd like to submit the article to scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with any sections that could/should be added to make the article comprehensive; but given my passion for the subject matter I'm not the best person to figure out what those might be. - Roy Boy 800 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
It's good, but still needs improvement. Creators section should be renamed into Production or something similar and include information such as when filming began and ended. I felt Synopsis was confusing and in some cases way too detailed. When an important charachter is introduced take the time to introduce that charachters role (not just using parenthsis) and maybe a little of that charachters personality. When describing events avoid too much detail, and I also felt the synopsis section used to many short awkward sentences. Influence and Awards should be moved after Synopsis and Themes should be moved between Synopsis and Influence and Awards. Also you are missing information about the Cast. Use Casablanca (film) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films as guides.
This sentence: "It could be argued the strong visuals serve to create a dehumanized world where human elements stand out. Furthermore the relationship between Deckard and Rachael could be essential in reaffirming their respective humanity." Sentences like this need to be avoided at all costs. Who is arguing this? What is "it"? For example instead say, "Other critics have countered that...". MechBrowman 15:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Second request. Tell us anything that needs to be improved on the article. -- Winnermario 01:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Another fork article for Order of Canada. Unlike the other one I nominated for PR, I have pictures for this one and it has not been listed for VFD. However, I still think we could feature this one without placing it on the front page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is a fork of Order of Canada, which also has Featured Status. I just want to see if this article is good enough to become Featured. I am not sure if article forks are good subjects for Featured status and I also do not think we can really put this on the front page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This article has been substantially expanded and mostly re-written since its previous attempt at FA status. I believe that all the issues raised in the previous FAC have been dealt with. I think it's now pretty much ready for FAC, and I'd like to have some input as to what remains to be done to get it there. Thanks in advance... — Johantheghost 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the inline links recommended in WP:MOS-L is that in the printer-friendly and aural versions of the page, the URL is rendered inline, which — particularly for aural rendering — disrupts the flow of the text to an unacceptable degree. I've therefore created the Panama Canal Authority article and linked to it, as recommended by Nichalp. — Johantheghost 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Profile of the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. It's been here for nearly a year and nobody has touched the substance. I'd really like opinions about its chances as a FAC. PedanticallySpeaking 15:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
What controversies? Someone outside the American arts community has no idea what this means. It is short of biographical information, is he married, does he have children, what did he do between 1983 and 1992 etc. The dispute with Donald Hall seems to have been quite significant in the relevant circles and should probably be described in more detail. Since he is actually an artist himself I would also expect to see more in depth discussion of his work like the biographies of other featured writers. -- nixie 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I reckon this is now a reasonably complete account of this famous poet and playwright's life and work. Would value any further comments or contributions. -- Ngb 17:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi. In fair division, a branch of theoretical economics, there is a thing called spite where a player acts against his own interests in order to hurt someone else. So I started a page called spite.
But the concept is much broader. How about some knowledgeable wikpedian adding some examples of spite/spiteful behaviour from literature or politics or psychology?
Robinh 13:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone should give some empirical examples of this, and elaborate on the psychology aspect, it can be a considerably large motive to human behavior. Raskolnikov The Penguin 02:35, 2005 July 21 (UTC) García Lorca
I re-submit this article for peer review, after loads of fab photos and diagrams have been added. I drew all the Mahjong tiles by myself — sheer drudgery, but I'm happy with my contribution. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe this is a largely comprehensive article about the general principles - no specifics yet. However, this article may require proofreading, and perhaps more detail (for one thing, no one I know knows the American rules, so information on American rules may be questionable). Still, comments are desperately needed. kelvSYC 05:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you go into this article's history, you can clearly see that someone, using an IP beginning with 172.xx, has spent an incredible amount of time and energy preparing this for Wikipedia ( see the talk page). However, I am not going to nominate it yet for a featured article, as I feel that something does need to be improved. Does anybody here have any comments on this article? — Stevey7788 ( talk) 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This article has been peer reviewed before, but I wasn't able to implement all the suggestions at the time. But I've tightened up the prose, deleted some stuff, added footnotes, added a bunch of fair use pics whose copyright has expired -- I'd love to find some photos, but can't find any that aren't copyrighted. Anyway, this is a fairly important feature in Byzantine architecture, and I'd love to bring it up to FAC quality -- any suggestions? Thanks! The PNM 02:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This is one of the most important social theories and quite an interesting subject, I think. Over the past few weeks I have research this subject, written the article on social evolutionism based on sociology coursebook and various online sources, and after some discussion on relevant talk pages, merged this article with the cultural evolution now a redirect. I'd like to hear your opinion on the article in its present state - especially as I think it is comprehensive enough to be FAC soon. I am also considering moving it to socio-cultural evolutionism. Any comments highly appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
One of the better articles about a ship from the Gundam Universe, I think. The page has been upgraded and added to several times, and now I'm looking for additional comments/suggests/thoughts on how to further improve it. TomStar81 09:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to get feedback on this article, which I believe to be a pretty good one, as I hope to nominate it for featured article status. Thanks for any help! KHM03 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Previous peerreview at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kammerlader/archive1. I hope for more inputs to this article about what I believe to be the first breech loading rifle in widespread service. I do hope to be able to make this into a FA-worthy article at some point, and any pointers would be helpfull. WegianWarrior 13:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
'Fate of the Kammerladers' section is very small, can use some expantion, now it looks like a stub section. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What about the "Various Civilian Models" of the Kammerlader? Guapovia 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sysin made an excellent start, and I believe this article has the potential to be a featured article. People are starting to straggle into the newly-created Greek Wikipedians' notice board, but it would be useful to have non-Greek Wikipedians look it over, since we want this to be relevant to as broad an audience as possible. -- Jpbrenna 8 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
My issues about this interesting article are:
— Theo (Talk) 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Jenmoa has questioned my objectivity in this matter. Personally, I have no objection to the idea that these points might be made in a manner that is more politically correct, as long as it is clearly expressed...
I've made a few changes... -- Sophroniscus 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I know little to say about the subject. I know of no Denomination that allows such Communion, though I would suspect that most follow the Roman Catholic rejection of the Apostolic practice. But who am I to say? -- Sophroniscus 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It is clear that Lutherans have, at least, considered the issue under the name Paedo-communion. -- Sophroniscus 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Several things:
— Theo (Talk) 22:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This ought to be WP:FA on October 21. It has had significant expansion since its last peer review (the credit doesn't go to me). More comments please and also try to keep it in the public eye. I think the consequences section needs work. Dunc| ☺ 21:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been tinkering with this article lately, and am interested in seeing how it could be improved further. A lot of people have very strong opinions about the organization in question, which has made keeping it NPOV difficult, but I think progress has been made. One area in particular I'm not sure how to deal with is that a lot of the critisism seems to be a little outdated, referring to previous issues that have been resolved (to whatever degree). Suggestions? Fieari 07:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is the second peer review. ( Archive1) The article has seen consistent improving since the last peer review; and I believe it meets Featured quality with the exception of references. Which at worst can be sprinkled into the article and refer to compilation books. - Roy Boy 800 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A river that I have hitchhiked along the course of, swum in, fallen in, drunk from, canoed on and generally got very familiar with, so a while back I thought I would work on its article which was formerly far briefer than befits the fourth longest river in Africa. Anyway, I'm no hydrologist, and have taken an awful lot of content from the 1911 Britannica, so would really appreciate more eyes on the article to tell me what else it would need to bring it to featurable quality. Worldtraveller 21:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the comments! I am now working towards including the sections suggested by the wikiproject. Have added infobox, and formatted units. Points 4 and 7 will be covered as I work on point 1, point 5 I will do some research on. Point 6 I'm not sure about, is that a general style guideline or more of a personal preference? My own preference is to alternate images left and right. Worldtraveller 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The article looks very good. Please include any references you have used in a reference list. I have two questions - has the river been used for transport? Does the flooding affect human settlements? Fauna would make an interesing addition, there are probably at least a few species of freshwater fish that are endemic to the catchment.-- nixie 03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Have done further work on this now, including a bit more about wildlife, a section listing major towns, expansion of transport section, and a few other small tweaks. Any more thoughts, anyone? Worldtraveller 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to get some feedback on this article. Voyager640 19:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Over the past months I have been researching the available knowledge about the Coriolis effect. I believe the subject of the Coriolis effect merits an article with the length it now has. I think it is an underestimated part of Newtonian dynamics. The Newtonian dynamics of the Coriolis effect is rather counterintuitive, and I felt there was a need for animations. The animations in the article are manufactured by me.
(There are in all 6 animated gif's. Thus the article will take a long time to download for people with a telephone connection to internet. Is there a recommended maximum Kilobytes for text plus images?)
I have tried to structure the article in such a way that the level of difficulty builds up gradually. The article is long because I take it slowly. My research of information available on the web has convinced me that a lot of people are quite baffled by the Coriolis effect.
In preparation for applying for Featured Article status I am requesting peer review now. I will have to convince other people that the Coriolis effect is really cool physics and worth such a long article. -- Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is an amazing example of the well explained and detailed stuff you get on Wikipedia that you wouldn't find elsewhere. It's not my article in any way, but I think it deserves to head towards featured status as an example of the interesting things you can find on Wikipedia. Please check it out and see how it could be made more accessable to a broader audience, or have more information from the talk page included within the main article. -- Pengo 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Not a self nomiantion. I just thought it was a great artical. Almost FA standard Richy 10:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Iran
A "landmark" band, and the article is kind of complete. I just need to know what else it needs to get FA criteria. Igordebraga 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
It has a lot of information, and other than game descriptions (and I know, the game descriptions should be trimmed), I'd like to know what else there is to do. -- A Link to the Past 21:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I believe this article is close to being ready for FAC, but need input from other editors to make it even better. Anything thats needs to be added, rewritten or taken out? Would also appriciate copyediting by someone with a better grasp of written english than myself =) Old request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jarmann M1884/archive1. WegianWarrior 07:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi I think the article should be considered for FA status. It probably needs more references but is comparable with the best high school articles on Wikipedia at the moment. Please comment. -- Celendin 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think there is a shortage of art-related featured articles on wikipedia. I believe the article on Mondrian can become one. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and nicely fleshed out. However, I think improvements can be made. I am specifically looking for feedback regarding tone and content, but I'd welcome any suggestions that would help the article -- Sophitus 22:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Also, some of the sections tend to be a little dry; describing the paintings in an almost clinical manner without giving much actual insight or context: how were these works received by the art community at the time, etc. Flowerparty talk 23:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I, regrettably, have no background in Nubian history, but several months ago I began working in this area to try and fill in some of the huge gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of African history. I am quite pleased with this article and hope to get it up to FA standards in the near future. One problem is that it needs more images. I am pursuing a couple avenues to get some, but if anyone else has some images of sites or artifacts from this period they would be much appreciated. The article also likely needs some copyediting. - SimonP 13:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I am reopening this peer review in the hope of more new comments. After a failed FAC nomination, this article obviously needs further review and editing to improve it to a level whereby it is worthy of featured status. I will now be actively looking to improve the wording of this article, and would like some feedback about where to focus my attention. Harro5 11:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I have written this article about the Eggerland series and would just like to know if readers think it's clear and explanatory. Do the pages about individual games help? I thought it was good to keep the general series info in one big page and game specific info in separate pages. -- Sivak 21:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten this article from a list to probably the only article on Wikipeida that comprehensively covers the diversity of fauna from one country. I'm looking for comments about the text, is there anything confusing, or that you though would be mentioned and isn't; and also for comments about the balance of topics covered. Thanks. -- nixie 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I've cleared up the problem with the lead, and copyedited the bulk of the article, although I'm sure other editors will pick up more errors. The summary style link is there since I intend to have that article up in the next few days. Thanks. -- nixie 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean: "After the Miocene, fauna of Asian origin could have become established in Australia."? Does it mean Asiatic fauna possibly became established in Australia or does it mean they had the opportunity to?-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
There was a former peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Milpitas, California/archive1, but unfortunately it was unsuccessful.
Please take a look at the article and comment on where it needs to be improved, and how we could make it into a featured article. The Milpitas article looks great but looks like it still needs work. Milpitas guy 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this article has a lot of interesting information, but is really a mish-mash. Other than a lack of organisation, can anybody think of other ways to improve the article? -- Alexs letterbox 10:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Needs references, plus the images (certainly the first two) would look better with descriptive subtitles ie "Set in 2026, the iconic Gothic skyscrapers set the tone of the film" or something better :D. Finally, a critical acclaim section at the bottom, highlighting the films success / popularity (of lack of), should see it right! -- PopUpPirate 11:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's grown from the ill-descript article it was to a potential featured article. Any suggestions for improvement? -- A Link to the Past 03:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I read his New York Times obituary before reading this and after a hasty assessment I only found one error (or was he divorced 5 times?). Our biography compares well. Although we never do mention this incident which the Times refers to 2 times: "Mr. Fonda continued acting despite major illnesses. After a performance of Clarence Darrow in 1974 he collapsed from what doctors called total exhaustion, and a pacemaker was implanted in his chest because of a heart-rhythm disorder." lots of issues | leave me a message 09:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Both the Post and Times obits never mentioned this event from the Oxford American National Biography: "On 14 April 1950, while Fonda was still playing Roberts, his wife, who had placed herself in a sanatorium, committed suicide after it became clear that Fonda was seeing another woman named Susan Blanchard. Less than a year later, Fonda and Blanchard were married, and Fonda adopted her daughter Amy." Should it be included? lots of issues | leave me a message 12:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
We would like to know if the this article has covered all aspects of the Indian economy. Suggestions, critique and help will be most welcome. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
On the whole the article looks great, it's well written and srtuctured. But, I don't like the numbered list in the begining of the history section. I think the see also interspersed throughout the sections should be added to the table of topics, or listed as {{ mainarticle}} where appropriate, they inhibit the flow a bit. There is no good mention of Indias balance of payments situation, is it a net exporter or importer- this could go in the table and/or the text, also what is the national/foreign debt of India, for example is India still servicing loans from development organisations like the IMF. The notes should probably just be listed numerically, breaking them into sections makes them a bit harder to follow.-- nixie 10:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should put some of the images and tables on the left because there are way too many sitting on the right-hand side. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This article's been expanded from a stub to a fairly concise description of the song and its history. With further expansion, I think it might be a good candidate for FA (and provide an alternative to all those Beatles songs!). I greatly appreciate criticism, and especially any contributions that could help the article. Thanks. :) Volatile 16:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
A good article, the only thing I'd say missing is its success internationally on the charts. Remember Aretha was a worldwide star, not just in the USA. Also, its certification from sales wouldnt hurt and possibly an external link to its lyrics. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Just looking for some helpful information or tips. Wanted to try and get this as a featured article. 65.71.127.228 05:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess, and causing general puzzlement over how to clean it up.
Is there anyone here with knowledge of Lie algebra who'd glance over it to see if there's any sense at all in it? Thanks in advance. Tearlach 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
A noteworthy event in the United Kingdom (of course). What do you think this article is missing? Talrias ( t | e | c) 21:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I've done these changes myself. Deus Ex 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Remarkably well-written and NPoV article, especially considering the subject. It has been laden with tags by a single contentious editor, who also occasionally reverts. I looked at the article in an effort to mediate this dispute, and was impressed by the quality of the majority text. His points of difference should be resolved; they are listed at some length on the Talk:criticisms of communism, especially the one actual accuracy dispute (about the relative productivity of Hungary and France); and any other questions of accuracy and PoV raised. Septentrionalis 17:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Previous Peer Review can be found here
The last review was over a year ago and the article is still good but is looking very messy and sprawly. I'd be very grateful for some further ideas about what we should do with this one. -- Spartaz 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Purge the gallery and put the images in appropriate places. Wiki-newbie 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Is Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan) ever going to be worthy of an article? If not, delink it. Check the other red links as well, the next one I saw was flight risk which seems unlikely to ever be made as well. It's quite long and, as you say, 'sprawly'. Could the information about specific country's policies and any of the other 'list' type information be put in their own articles and summarised in the main article? The gallery could go as Wiki-newbie says, and some of the images located elsewhere on the page. There are very few cites for the length of article, in particular the history has only one. It seems very disjointed as well, I think it should be cut back quite severely and only general information included, with as little country-specific stuff as possible (as there are too many countries to mention them all on the page, and to focus on particular ones is POV). Trebor 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of country specific articles. Perhaps some of the stuff can be hoved off there with links from the sections of the main article. Thanks for the advice so far. very useful. Spartaz 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Red Links can be de-wikified Doctor Bruno 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In-depth article on a notable song, which came at a major turning point in the careers of The Temptations (all of which is discussed in the article). What can be done to improve this article to possibly FA status? (I'm trying very, very hard to find appropriate images, but I'm having no luck. Can anyone help?) -- FuriousFreddy 14:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Just resubmitting this peer review. Not much response last time and the article is now much more complete than it was at that time.-- Will2k 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This article just went through a Spanish Translation of the Week, and it shouldn't take much to raise it to FAC status. I've been working on it quite a bit, and I would like to see that; however, it still needs to be shortened a bit (it's 2KB too long), a better introductory summary, and inline citations. On the good side, the material is stable, comprehensive and accurate; no edit wars are going on; and the images don't have any copyvio problems. General comments will be appreciated too. -- Titoxd 21:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that I do not think this article is ready for FAC yet. Some issues:
In short, I do not think this article is tightly on topic if the topic is going to be about the geology of Venus. An easy fix to bring this article more on topic would be to rename it surface features of Venus. But answering the above questions would be even better. -- mav 18:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the word "geology" used to describe other planets? I've seen the term "selenology" for the Moon, though I have no idea how prevalent that is. Is there another term? John Barleycorn 23:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Almost all of the images are much too dark on my monitor.-- Bcrowell 01:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I intend to bring this article to at least a good of quality as History of South Carolina, which I also wrote, and intend to eventually make it a featured article. Currently the article is a monstrous 68KB, so later it will be broken into separate articles for separate time periods until it reaches an acceptable length again. It also needs sections on Arizona past 1856. The latest section that I added today needs to be wikified, which I'll do tomorrow, but before I split it up after that, I'd like to have all of it reviewed together as a whole. Thanks in advance. Toothpaste 02:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an OK article, but I think it has potential, and I'd like to know what should be done to make it a great article. I would like to make it into a Featured Article. AlbertR 19:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This article definitley needs some help. Is there anyone who can add some better sources 129.170.90.88 21:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This is the talk page to discuss ways to improve the factual accuracy of the article. Please contribute by finding factual sources to contribute to the article or to dispute the nature of the article. One use has problems with using internet references. Is anyone able to find textual references? Willing to? 129.170.90.88 21:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This is the talk page to discuss ways to improve the article. There has been a lot of arguing over the factual basis for the article and I am hoping that some helpful people are willing to find information on the subject. 129.170.90.88 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, a FAC was closed recently about this artcle, and it was starting to get very ugly. Because of that, it was hard to fix some objections. I want to know if what do I need to do in order to get this up to Featured Status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
For those who cannot seem to find out what some objections here, here is the list. I added my comments in the brackets:
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I know that Wikipedia is not a place to mask offensive words with asterisks, some African Americans could be severely insulted by the mere presence of the phrase "Gay Nigger". The article is also the target of reckless vandalism and has seen many disputes. We need more research on what what the goal of the article is. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If I read WP:WIAFA correctly, stability refers to "Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day." While things are getting added day to day to the article, the concept of the article remains the same: Intro, members, attacks and reaction to them. But, if those sections are being changed around on a constant basis, then I can see why the article is not considered stable. As for the edit waring, this is what the above site says "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." I do not see vandalism as an obstacle to the edit waring, since every page gets vandalized in their life on the Wiki. Plus, the last problems took place a month ago, but the issue was resolved when the waring edits left the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"The GNAA have succesfully trolled Mac OS X users several times." What consitutes a "successful" troll? Who establishes the criteria? How can this statement be factually accurate and verfiable? -- Tabor 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Regarding that the page in question is a failed featured article candidate, but has since received substantial additions and content suggestions in its discussion page, I suggest a peer review be done to correct the remaining issues. I did not write any of this article, but I was extremely impressed with its level of content. Cwolfsheep 04:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The article has improved heaps since the last time I looked at it. One thing that will need to be addressed for FAC is the lack of refernces, there are few inline or general refernces given, are the texts listed as further reading actually references? A consistent system of referencing should be used throughout try {{ ref}} {{ note}} or Wikipedia:Footnote3. You may get asked to add a war box, see it in use on Algerian Civil War. The article uses some good PD images, but the images that are fair use will need a raionale as to why they are fair used added to the image page, lots of FACs are being held up due to image issues at the moment. Is the Glossary of Armed Groups complete? Nambia doesn't have any groups listed.-- nixie 03:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like this pear-reviewed. I think it's main problem is that it hasnt got ne photos, despite us having some good ones already here and there. Brööñëë 18:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Failed to become a featured article a while back, but is ready for a thurough peer review. -- The_stuart 13:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
A very interesting theory in the future studies. Something that may change greatly our world. I think this article is quite comprehensive, well written and has pretty pictures (graphs). Do you think it is ready for FAC? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I watch Black Hole High and am a fan of this actor, and I thought he deserved a strong Wikipedia article. I have improved and expanded it as much as I could from the version that was present before ( diff), and while I am fully aware that it is far too short to be a featured article at the moment, I was wondering whether anybody here had any ideas on how I could improve upon its current state. Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Machine 02:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been claimed that the Portuguese persecuted the Nasrani. Yet no evidence of that claim was brought forward. How many Nasrani were killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Do we know the identity of anyone was killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Why were they killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Was this merely the result of military and imperial ambition, or was there more to it?
The only evidence presented is that a few books were banned; and the Synod of Diamper made some changes to the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari. It is clear that Aleixo de Menezes was motivated by misguided zeal. It is clear that a schism was the result. But that hardly seems to justify the term persecution.
-- Sophroniscus 23:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
(1) Thanks. I have done as requested.
(2) My real concern is that I detect bias in the article. It was more than 50 years from the Synod of Diamper to the Coonan Cross Oath. And it was some 36 years after the death of Aleixo de Menezes to the Coonan Cross Oath. That doesn't seem to imply to me that the Nasrani were being persecuted, at least in the normal sense of the term. Certainly it seems strange to blame the schism on either the Synod of Diamper or Aleixo de Menezes, though they had a part to play. But it seems likely to me that the Nasrani did these things to themselves. But who am I to say? I know nothing of Indian history. Perhaps it is my own bias that is at issue. I suppose I could raise an NPOV objection. But that seems a bit harsh, coming from one who admits his ignorance.
The Nasrani people along with the Malabari Jews were definitely persecuted by the portuguese. Here are some references of Nasrani persecution from the texts of H. H. Meyers, Benjamin George Wilkinson, Ph. D. and others. The links to these texts are also provided.
"The Portuguese not only persecuted and killed all the bishops as they came from Antioch but their metran .... ..... And those Syrians who opposed his designs were persecuted and put to death." ("The Syrian Christians of Malabar" p.23).
see here: http://www.present-truth.org/Bible-Battle/inquisitive-3.htm
"The Portuguese also inaugurated slave trade by seizing able-bodied men and women ..... .... slave market in Goa." ("The Syrian Christians of Kerala", 1963, p.31). by S.C. Pothan
See here: http://www.present-truth.org/Bible-Battle/inquisitive-4.htm#CHAPTER
"Besides hunting down heretics, Jews, new Christians, and all who were accused of Judaizing (that is, conforming to the ceremonies of the Mosaic law, ..... ...... the Goanese Inquisitors also replenished their dungeons with persons accused of magic and sorcery." from The Syrian Church in India, by Rae p. 200.
see here: http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/truthtriumphant/chapter20.html
Robin klein 15:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe this article has finally reached the FAC standard. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering what people think it would take to get this up to the level for WP:FLC. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this a while back, I'd like to get the communities opinion. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like this artilce to be peer reviewed, basically for grammar, spelling and flow. -- Oblivious 03:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an article on a topic that attracts a lot of readers and editors with strong feelings. I think it's getting to be FA quality, and would appreciate any feedback.-- Bcrowell 23:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
A forgotten Eastern European war. One in which Moscow was captured and the fate of the entire region was decided. Comments much welcomed, I would like to submit it to FAC soon. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The edit conflict has died down now and I feel it is time to get a wikipedia peer review of this article. It is a natural step considering its size and how much work has gone into it. -- OrbitOne 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, AndyZ t 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Sissy baby
I find it is a good article about an important yet not very well known battle of WWII, but most of the article was made by one person, Oldsoul, with minor changes by me and a couple other people, so I think it really needs more people to look over it, especially people who did not make it. I know references are missing, but I cannot get the formatting right to do them, I have tried, but kept failing. say1988 17:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this page. It took me three or four days to pull together the bulk of this article. I've just posted a response to the talk page which addresses my current concerns. Chief of which is that many of the paragraphs now read too long in my opinion, and many details and descriptions may serve the overall article well to be shortened somewhat. In any case, the more minds the better on this one, I know we are all in it for the right reasons. Here's to FA status... Oldsoul 10:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
This article just underwent some major rewrites as part of the new Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Ultimately, I think our collaboration would like to help articles reached featured status. I have no experience with this process, and would appreciate any advice the reviewers could offer for what steps we can take to further improve this article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this up over the course of a few days last week, it was a DYK feature and got some other attention that way, which seems to have culled out most of the typos, etc. What do you think? Is there anything which could be tightened up, anything which is unclear, anything missing that you can think of? The goal was to write an article which 1. explained the supposed principle, 2. explained its history in the US and elsewhere, 3. explained how we know what we know about it. Thanks. -- Fastfission 11:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhh, not the foam plasma pressure fallacy again! Doesn't anyone read the FAQ anymore?
Nuclear Weapon FAQ Sect 4.4.4.2.2, Radiation Channel.
The implosion pressure does not come from the filler foam.
It's possible to build and fire a Teller-Ulam device with a completely empty radiation channel in the radiation case.
The foam is there to retard initial liner and pusher ablation long enough for the energy distribution to even out smoothly.
The pressures generated are trivial compared to those required to implode the secondary.
What generates the implosion pressure is the ablation (effectively as if it were an in-turned rocket motor) of the fusion pusher layer of the tamper/pusher assembly.
A large portion of the tamper/pusher ablates away in this process, leaving a thinner tamper layer up against the now-compressed fuel layer.
I know Moorland's article said that the foam plasma pressure was significant, but Morland wasn't a bomb physicist, and we know a lot more now than we did then. These inaccurate descriptions have got to stop, they're grossly misleading everyone.
I can rewrite the article's implosion description sometime this week, but for now, it flunks peer review on that basis. Sorry. It's not your fault for believing the Morland article, but Morland got that detail (and several others) wrong... Gotta get it right here. Georgewilliamherbert 09:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it getting too long? Should it be broken into chunks? What related articles would you suggest? Any suggestions would be appreciated. -- Jpbrenna 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent read. However, there are no external links. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 23:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This article was clearly not from a neutral point-of-view. It's poignantly obvious, because every time Muhammed, the Prophet, God's messenger was mentioned, the editors wrote "peace be upon him," which is a Muslim custom. Furthermore, it's poignantly obvious it's not from a neutral point-of-view from how the founder of Wahabbism\Salafi is described:
This article is of such low-quality that it should be removed. But I doubt I would be able to, and even if I could, Wahhab is famous enough that he deserves an article. However, I am not educated on the subject, so anyone that is, or can research it, please do. 69.138.24.96 19:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This is probably better handled according to the clean up process. Mozzerati 19:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
One of the most famous football (soccer) clubs in the UK, and WP doesn't have too many FACs (in fact, only one by my count) that relate to the sport. The article is fairly comprehensive, but then I've written a fair bit of it myself so I'm probably biased. All contributions welcome on its content, especially for how well it caters for the layman. IFK Göteborg is the only FAC related to a football club and may be useful in comparison. Qwghlm 17:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I believe all the issues raised above have been satisfactorily resolved. If there are any more points of discussion then please air them. I think the article is now getting up to FAC standard (though it could do with a picture of
Highbury as well).
Qwghlm 13:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario/archive1
The article seems to be nearing featured status. There should probably be a few more references; my question is, what else is left to cite? Also, is there anything other improvements to be made to this article to reach featured status? — The Gr e at Llama talk 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This was a recent failed FAC nomination largely through not receiving sufficient support votes. There were no actionable objections but obviously everything is capable of some improvement. If anyone knows the location of a suitable GFDL good quality colour image then that would be a help. David | Talk 13:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't expect this to become a featured article or anything, but I just want some feedback on how to make it better. I just finished the entire article myself, and I just want some outside opinions on it. Any help is appreciated. Clinevol98 06:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I've extensively edited the text for style, but it's still rather clumsy, and too detailed for such a minor movie, in my opinion. I think the plot summary would benefit from reduction to a much smaller synopsis. TheMadBaron 00:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is still a stub (actually limited to only the 2001 election) because it lacks any information about the detailled results of the former elections. If somebody (a New yorker, for exemple), as any information who could help to improve this article, he is welcome.-- Revas 21:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article to get some opinions from outside the WP:LDS project regarding how much farther it has to go until it reaches featured article status. I do not assert that it is there, it needs more work, but a laundry list from this place will be helpful, I believe. Cookiecaper 14:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The way the text is structured is quite disjointed, there are too many short paragraphs or stray sentences - they should be merged into continuous paragraphs. All the image copyrights will need to be checked and anything claimed as fair use will need a rationale for fair use written on the image description page, anything used with permission will also need to be changed to fair use or removed. As someone not especially familliar with the LDS, I think the section on his prophecies should be expanded to a paragraph that summarises his key prophecies. One last thing, a consistent footnoting system should be used for inline refernces, see Wikipedia:Footnote3.-- nixie 10:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to state that the thoughts or opinions of you all are important, but should not be discussed publicly in a popular resource. It is immature, and unless you have firsthand evidence of any of the things you've said- then please refrain from sharing them.
This is a small step in my goal of improving the quality of the Meteorology category. This request for peer review is made in the hope of it someday becoming a Feature article.-- demonburrito 04:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Supercells are usually found isolated from other thunderstorms in the warm air in front of a squall line, although they can sometimes be embedded in a squall line. They can last hours—they are quasi-steady-state storms. They usually to track to the right of the mean wind—they are said to be right movers.
I've expanded this article extensively - previously it was little more than a stub. I've made it about as good as I can without outside input, yet I would like to be able to make it better. Hence, I would like it to be peer reviewed. I'm looking for advice on style, formatting, content, everything. Let me have it! Euchrid 09:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
A quite comprehensive and extremely well-illustrated article. Besides copyediting, an expanded lead, a layout revision, some general scrutiny of the factual content (of which I am not terrible knowledgeable) and a proper reference section, I feel there isn't much from keeping this from being a very suitable FAC. Other suggestions for expanding or revising the article are more than welcome. / Peter Isotalo 14:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this article is exellent and IMO should be nominated for FA status. I would like to listen to other peoples' opinions before doing that though.-- Exir Kamalabadi Criticism is welcomed! 09:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think it has a shot at making it to Featured Status, but here's what I see needing to happen before we get there.
What do you all think? Karmafist 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) First Peer Review can be found here
You have a great foundation to build a featured article! Bon chance! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, we've had two peer reviews, a couple of major blowouts, mediation, some RFC's, and a massive rewrite. Personally, I think this version is pretty good, but I've been working on it for some time now. Please note that the article is still listed as in mediation, as a controversial topic, and that this has been a problematic article. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. FuelWagon 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback so far. I would just say in response to the idea of cutting the article: sure. except as soon as you cut out one accusation of witchcraft, someone will cry bias. Motions and affidavits of the most absurd accusations and assertions were filed and the court found most of them to be utterly without basis. But if you cut one affidavit, someone will howl that we left out so-and-so's accusations that Michael practiced statanic rituals on Terri, drank her blood, and danced on her grave, and therefore say the article is biased. They'll put the accusation back in, and it will get reverted, an edit war will flare up, and the only stable solution we've managed to reach is to describe so-and-so's accusations and then give a full account of how the court viewed them, what the guardian ad litems said contrary to them, and so on. The end result, of course, being an 80k article. If there's a way to shorten the article, that won't get reverted by those who wish to list every accusation of witchcraft against Michael, the only idea I canthink of is to break the 80k article into some sub articles. I'm not sure how, but I think if you just delete something, you'll see someone eventually put it back in, only they'll put in one POV versus all the different POV's. suggestions for how to cut it into subarticles would be appreciated. FuelWagon 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This is way too long and way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I think just the first 2 paragrphs, plus a little summing up statement of its significance should suffice. There is no need to list EVERY doctor, EVERY diagnosis, EVERY school she attended, etc. While this topic is obviously important to those close to the person, it gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to other articles, and there is really very little in it that would interest a general public. What is needed here is some perspective. For example, the article on George Washington is less than half the size of this article. Is there really twice as much to say about Terri Schiavo than about George Washington that would actually interest a general public? This is not the forum to dispute issues, rather it is the place to put things into their proper perspective and to show how they fit with other aspects of knowledge. What is the historical significance of this case? Why should we remember it in 20 years? What does it tell us about the United States in 2005? Nrets 17:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Reults from automated tool:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy t 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time this article has been submitted to Peer Review. The first peer review request is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Christina Aguilera/archive1. Since the previous request, the article has improved signifigantly, and I'm planning on seeing whether or not this is prime time for WP:FAC. -- LBMixPro (Speak on it!)
First attempt to write an article at this level. Would appreciate feedback. 83.245.16.227 14:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Mike Dash, 12 Aug 2005
Peer Review request was originally placed in Talk:Leigh Richmond Roose by mistake - copied here by Qwghlm 11:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Further descriptive information on the article - Leigh Roose was a Welsh football (soccer) goalkeeper who played at the turn of the 20th century, who was well known for his eccentricity. Qwghlm 11:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I am nomintaing this article for peer review because I am a big fan of Katamari, and would like to see it become a featured article. I think it is really close, especially after adding the sections on setting and characters. I have commissioned a friend of mine to draw some pictures of characters from the game in order to avoid ugly copyright issues. Any suggestions and/or improvements are welcome. RyanGerbil10 17:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think I have made some changes that address your concerns, but if you have any more, I would be glad to edit the article further. RyanGerbil10 05:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm resubmitting this article for peer review with an eye to get it up to FA-quailty (and perhaps even FA-status *smiles*). It has previously gone thru a peer review in December 2004 and it was a (failed) FAC in June 2005. I have extensivly rewritten, expanded and referenced the article over the last few days - so in essence it's a completly updated article compared to the one I submited for FAC earlier. I would like to hear any comments y'all might have on this article about one odf the first repeating rifles adopted by an armed force anywhere in the world. I do believe it's close to FA-standards, but inputs are needed for the last polish. Also, if someone with a better grasp of written English could look over it, it is appriciated. WegianWarrior 08:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This one has mostly been written by me. Some sections seem slightly fan-ish, so it'd be great to get some outside views on it. I think it's fairly complete, but if you can think of anything missing I'd be glad to add it. I might take it to FAC if there are no major points raised, but it's probably much too short right now to stand a chance. So, what do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 00:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've researched and written this article and I think it might be a good example of a current biography of a noteworthy person, but I am looking for peer review to help make it the best it can be. I am particularly pleased because recently the Ambassador visited the page and gave it good marks for accuracy. Is it possible for something like this to become a FA? What improvements would you suggest I make here? This page was previously listed on DYK. -- JRP 03:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The article would need to be bulked out quite a bit to become a FAC, see Helen Gandy for a recent example of a reliatively minor polictial figure that reached featured status. For instance what did he do before he became a diplomat, there could also be more detail on his diplomatic postings and on the scandal that occured while he was in Bahrain in addition to his other posts. -- nixie 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The article appears to be detailed enough for Wikipedia:Featured_articles; this peer review would be to prepare the article for nomination. Cwolfsheep 14:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm the primary author on the Cornea transplant article (taking from a redirect to an article), and I think in the future it might make an interesting featured article. However, I also feel it needs a "broader context". I work as a secretary for a corneal ophthalmologist, so I think I can give a good layman's perspective on the issue. So fire away and let's see what can be done. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 08:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The article doesn't really mention when a cornea transplant is needed. How common is the procedure, is it usually successful?-- nixie 13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Previous peer review. Well, the article has been expanded drastically and many parts have been rewritten. I believe the concerns from the previous peer review about the criticisms section have been addressed, and I even added in the velvet sweatshop mention for good measure (even though its not in the common criticisms article!). I'm sending it FAC after this - so if you have a comment do not hesitate to chime in! Its time for Microsoft to become a featured article! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Needs improvement. Here are some examples of why the text needs to be sifted through thoroughly and thoughtfully:
It will get there, but needs LOTS of work still. Tony 13:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Object subject matter is still too evil to be made an FA. Borisblue 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys! I've already talked to Simon. Tony - a couple people I know have went over this and submitted fixes since then, and they also seem to disagree with the "LOTS of work still" comment, although I do admit your help is quite good on this (and I might agree with you about the lead too). I still need to add some of Simon's stuff from above, so I'll let everyone know when I'm done with that (and some other things like the lead etc.):). Thanks for the encouragement Borisblue! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
OK GUYS - I added a bunch of stuff - including stock info, corporate structure info, user culture info, and a section heading to corporate affairs. I also reworked the business culture part, moved out some stuff from the trivia section and merged it with the article, and took care of a few of tony's suggestions. I'm still unsure about the intro though - most people I've talked to say it's fine, but Tony seems to disagree. Perhaps you could highlight which parts are covered too much and too little? Anyway, so how does the article look overall guys? I think its VERY close to FA status :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, can't look until end of week. Tony 01:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey - don't worry about it - this thing has nearly twenty days left on it :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that I rewrote the intro quite a bit, somewhat to address Tony's concerns but also for my own flow pickiness. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
OK - originally I was going to wait until this thing ended but I had time to do a word-by-word copyedit, and at this point there's literally nothing else I can think of. So thanks to everyone for their comments :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Second peer review (first here). I had some insanely helpful suggestions the first time, which I believe I have taken care of. So, any comments are welcome - particularily is it sufficiently readable to the laymen-non-programmers and is the intro good/comprehensive enough? Thanks! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 08:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The editors of this page are seeking more input and efforts into this article before it's submitted to FAC. Deryc k C. 07:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Despite containing controversial issues, this article was applaused for achieving neutrality, unbias and NPOV. It deserves more attention and even the FA status. CG 14:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've finished forking this article from the novel's article and done a lot of cleanup. I'd appreciate a fresh pair of eyes to see what else needs doing. Rob Church Talk | Desk 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks. Got inspired after a recent trip to Rome, and decided to create articles for some of the more noteworthy and favorite Roman spots. Added the Temple of Hercules Victor article via a link on the Forum Boarium article. Nice, short and sweet. Thoughts and input? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Archive 1 This article is the current GA collaboration and suggestions on how this article could be improved to FA status would be appreciated. Tarret 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The prose needs a lot of work. I've been working on it, but there are still some awkward phrases, such as:
It's starting to look very, very good. 2a is the issue. — Deckill e r 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I am starting to dislike the peer review system. We place the FF8 peer review up for a week, and people end up posting their comments on the talk page, which is absolutely not their fault, but it shows how this system is starting to become obsolete. It seems that FAC is turning into the new peer review...— Deckill e r 06:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The prose still needs work; I'll go ahead and finish my copyedits in a bit. — Deckill e r 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
For the archived peer review of this article see
Dogpatch USA Peer Review Archive 1
This article is near feature status. Only a few problems with sentence structure, reference, and may be a few italics problems. Hoping it will stay here a week or two and then become featured.--
The_stuart
13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I decided to try to expand and clean up this article with the goal of one day getting it featured. Aside from climate (which I am unsure of the proper place to find that information) is there anything else that needs attention? Pentawing 01:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll review in depth if the above are taken care off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
According to the Fed Aviation Facilities Directory, the elevation of the runway at Ann Arbor Airport (ARB) is 839 feet. That is probably as good an elevation as any, since the terrain in Ann Arbor varies due to the river valley.
Here's some economic information from Crain’s Detroit Business from its most recent survey of the largest public and private employers in Washtenaw County ranked by full-time employees as of January, 2004.
The top 20 of these employers are listed below
The largest employers in Ann Arbor include the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Hospital. The largest employers in Ypsilanti include Eastern Michigan University, Trinity Health, and General Motors. The number three employer in the county, Visteon Corporation, is Ford Motor Company’s largest supplier and Visteon’s highly-paid employees are protected by UAW contracts.
Washtenaw County’s Largest Employers, 2004
Rank Company Name Employees Type of business 1 University of Michigan 15,594 Public university 2 University of Michigan Health Centers 8,569 Hospital & health center 3 Visteon Corporation 5,910 Automotive supplier 4 Ford Motor Co. 5,000 Automobile manufacturer 5 General Motors Corp. 4,739 Automobile manufacturer 6 Trinity Health 4,503 Health care system 7 U.S. Government 2,607 Federal government 8 Pfizer Inc. 2,600 Pharmaceutical company 9 Ann Arbor Public Schools 2,130 Public school district 10 Eastern Michigan University 2,088 Public University 11 State of Michigan 1,791 State government 12 Borders Group Inc. 1,406 Book & music retailer 13 Washtenaw County government 1,388 Municipal government 14 ProQuest Co. 980 Information databases 15 Standard Federal Bank, N.A. 934 Mortgage and financial services 16 City of Ann Arbor 820 City government 17 DTE Energy Co. 678 Energy company 18 Ypsilanti Public Schools 658 Public school district 19 Chelsea Community Hospital 639 Community hospital 20 Chrysler Group 564 Automobile manufacturer
Also of note is that Ann Arbor is the Headquarters of Flint Inc., the worlds largest privately held manufacturer of ink with reported revenues of USD$1.471 billion. Flint Ink is listed by Crain’s Detroit Business among Michigan's top ten privately held companies, and by Forbes among the top 220 Private Companies in the US. I don't work there, but it is an oft overlooked Ann Arbor Company which is interesting, considering its size)
Economic stability is provided, to a great extent, by the county’s two universities - The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti. These facilities are major employers which are not as economically sensitive to fluctuations in automotive demand as are industries found in the Detroit area. Recently emphasis on high technology research and development expansion has been a priority of the MEDC and other NGO organizations. The universities have attracted a variety of companies in technology industries in recent history.
There are many significant research-oriented high technology firms in the area are including - Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Control Laboratory - Pfizer Global R&D - General Dynamics (former ERIM), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Proquest - Terumo Cardiovascular Systems (formerly a division of 3M) - U of M Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)
The University of Michigan ranked first in research dollars spent by public universities in fiscal year 1990, with much of these funds devoted to biomedical developments funding from the NIH.
Take this information and place it in the article as you see fit. Since you're working on it, it is probably good to have it in your style. Keep up the work and let me know if you want to catch up fro coffee at Zolas to talk about Wikipedia some morning. My username has a lot to do with my name. Best...-- Ronreed 17:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Note: I am not the one disputing any part of this article ( Operating Thetan). I am just trying to bring it to the state that it would be in had the procedures at Wikipedia:Disputed statement been followed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
After having removed one's own reactive mind and thus attaining the state of Clear, one then goes on to remove one's Body Thetans (each of which has its own reactive mind) through Dianetic auditing.
This comment about removing body thetans is innacurate, as if removing body thetans is the only thing done after clear -- moved from comment made inside article by AI ( talk · contribs) in this edit.
This was nominated for Featured Article last December (see nomination). It got 6 support votes and 6 object votes. Many of the objections have been resloved, including adding pictures of clean Rubik's Cubes, expanding the lead section, etc. I'd like this article to be prepared next time it goes to WP:FAC. Coffee 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic images; a major improvement over the last FAC. I like all three of them, though it might be better to move the one with the tilted side to the Solutions section and give a caption "The Rubik's Cube being solved" or something. I also still think that a dissected cube would be really interesting to show. The "Rubik's Cube as a mathematical group" section still sounds (and looks) like a graduate level paper. I'd also suggest moving the Patrick Bossert reference to the history section, I think it fits better there. Inline citations would be a real plus, and please, cut down on the external links. One or two online/software simulations is enough, one or two solution pages, the official records page, only one link to speedcubing.com, and maybe one link to a patent website. 8-10 links would be more than enough. -- Spangineer (háblame) 14:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Article needs a photo, or diagram, of a disassembled cube. Some artwork patterns (alphabet characters, checkerboard, etc.) might be nice, too.-- J-Wiki 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be subject to much bias and not entirely academic language. Some parts of the article have been expunged for irrelevancy and bias, however the rest of the language is more than I am willing to deal with. Moreover, parts which are relevant to the word shaitan, not to mention scholarly, have been removed by previous editors for no apparently academic reason. Thus restoration and clean up of this article is requiring more than I am capable of providing, so I would like to request that some individuals who are capable go over this article. 68.163.3.152 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I put this article in for peer review because it needs a lot of info and it is a current event. It is rather sparse right now.
I've been editing this article over the past few days. I'd like your opinion on how to improve it, since I feel it has the potential to be a featured article in the future. Manitoban 19:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
hey manitoban let me know who you are, i live in winkler and may be able to assist with this
I've created this template as a navigational box for use on major diamond-related articles. While diamond was being nominated (successfully) on FAC some months ago, there were some complaints that links to important sub-articles were hard to find; the "See also" list was also stripped from the article. I think of this template as a prettied-up "See also" list that can easily be put on the relevant articles as an aid to readers interested in reading more on given subtopics, and navigating the relevant articles. I should also mention that the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured topics inspired me to link the main articles on the topic together in a cohesive way.
However, I'm not sure if using a template as a nav box in this manner is a "good thing", a "bad thing", or a "thing that nobody cares about". So I turn to you, faithful PR editors, for input. I would love to hear your feelings on the general use of this type of template and the specific usefulness of this one. Any edits or suggestions regarding the template itself (format and/or content) would, of course, also be appreciated. Many thanks. Bantman 18:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I find this a good article about a certain type of garment. The only things missing is perhaps some more notes as to the history of the garment and about manufactoring. John Anderson 14:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I did some major rewrites on this, but I'm fairly new and don't know how much more work it needs before it could (possibly) get up to FA status. Any small grammar/spelling fixes that I missed would be appreciated :). GregAsche 19:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This article is the Australian collaboration of the fortnight, an Australian drive to improve the article to FAC standard. Undoubtedly it's not there yet, but I'm not sure what else it needs to reach such a lofty standard. Article presently features a hand-drawn map and references. -- fuddlemark 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The article as is stands, with the exception of the first paragraph (Background) to which I helped, is almost entriely original research. The Source given to back up statements in fact state the opposite. For example the source given to back up the statement: "Obviously this is a vision of Heaven that is more likely to appeal to men. Eternally virgin dark-eyed Houris are unlikely to appeal to many women" actually says "The life of women in Jannah will be as pleasant and happy as the life of men. Allah is not partial to any gender. He created both of them and He will take care of both of them according to their needs and desires. Let us all work to achieve the Jannah and then, in sha’ Allah, we will find there what will satisfy all of us fully." - It needs to be severly NPOVed to boot. It ignores the "Science of hadith" and selectively picks Hadees that suits the cause, ignores the isnad and context, and suggests that that is all the source that is needed. Help Needed here badly! -- Irishpunktom\ talk 15:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I've been working away at this article in its corner of Wikipedia over the past couple of months, and have included information on the actress's roles in the films she has been in, quotes from critics reviewing her work as well from as the actress herself, and images that relate to the accompanying sections in the article. However, nobody else has touched the article (apart from minor edits), and I would really appreciate the opinions of people here on what they think of the article in the state it is in now, and what they think could be done to improve it. Thank you in advance. Extraordinary Machine 03:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is about the transport and electricity company synonymous with the city of
Mumbai (
Bombay). Would like to know if there is any angle not covered. (PS At this moment, I've not added the references, will do so. Kindly ignore). Will also add some images soon.
=Nichalp
«Talk»= 15:28, 25 August, 2005 (UTC)
A profile of the Republican Member of Congress-elect, chosen in the special election in Ohio on August 2 that attracted national attention. Article has photos, maps, references. I'd really like to see this make featured status by September 6, when she'll be sworn in. It needs a good proofreading to start--I've looked at it so much, my eyes have glazed over and I know I'm not seeing problems. I am also submitting for peer review my article on the losing candidate, Paul Hackett. (See Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Hackett/archive1 for that.) PedanticallySpeaking 19:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
User:Nrets and I have put a lot of work into this article. We think it may be featured article-worthy. We would appreciate wiki experts to comment on the layout, style, and graphics; writers to comment on our language; laypeople to comment on the level of comprehension (is it too technical?); and neuroscientists/anatomists to comment on the accuracy. Semiconscious ( talk • home) 22:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Semiconscious - I think that this article is very close to featured quality, speaking from a reasonably informed scientist's perspective. I think this is a model for a well-written, technical article on neuroanatomy for Wikipedia. I appreciate the fascinating bits of information you throw in, like: "patients suffering archicerebellar lesions carry identification cards indicating the nature of their medical condition so as to avoid suspicion of public drunkenness by the police" and the clear writing in the dysfunctions section. Also, the pictures are great: clear schematics, well labeled, and a beautiful fluorescence image of Purkinje cells.
Great job, guys!! Mr.Bip 08:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts about this going up as a FAC? I've never done it before, and I've never seen an article like this up there, so any advice and feedback would be great. Semiconscious ( talk · home) 08:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been organizing and working on this article a bit, hoping to submit it to FAC soon. I think the section on howling would do nicely with an image, and the references could be expanded. Any suggestions?
Sango
123 23:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I have submitted this article once for a peer review, and I have decided that I will submit it again before trying to submit it to be a featured article canidate. This article has been cited 3 times by sources outside of wikipedia, and since phishing has become a big issue today, I would like to see this become a featured article. One thing that i mentioned in the talk page is that this article has too many links in the external link section. I think it needs to be cropped, but I am not sure what links should stay or go. Suggestions in that department would be useful as well.-- ZeWrestler Talk 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
nixie left a few suggestions in my talk page for the phishing article. i'm posting them here for all to see.
Other than that, the article is coming alone greatly. -- ZeWrestler Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks great -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The former featured Belgium article has been modified along the lines suggested in the preceeding review, reasons to remove the featured status, and first trial to get re-featured. In particular, history has been strongly reduced, almost all pictures have been replaced by better ones, the culture section has been re-structured and the reference style has been improved. I am expecting your comments and suggestions. Is this page now ready to be re-featured? Vb 10:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, once these are taken care of, I'll move on to more stuff. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review. Many of your comments are very useful. Others are less so. I hope your comments are first hints to a discussion and not definitive.
So I thank you once again for your suggestion and I hope you understand why I shall not implement them in their entirety. I have not the time now to make all the changes you suggested with which I agree. I'll do that tomorrow or later.
Vb 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I would ask you to have this article copyedited before I can review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think now all your remarks have been taken into account. Some editors have copyedited it and I believe one could remove the copyedit flag. Vb 13:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This article has gone through peer review before (see archive). However, I am wondering if there are further ways to improve this article to featured status. In particular, I am wondering about images since half the images have questionable copyrights. Pentawing 21:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Since I know that my last few FAC's failed due to grammar and possible POV problems, I was wondering if people would like to see if yall could help me fix these problems. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
By the combined work of a great many contributors, this article has successively evolved beyond the 33kb limit, and it is about time it had a peer review. Opinions on style, encyclopedic relevancy and references would be especially appreciated. -- Salleman 17:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Edit: Please give me your opinion as to whether I should add the 30 or so works of modern fantasy mentioned in the article to the reference list? How do I reference "the Harry Potter book series" for example? -- Salleman 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it is misguided to demand a lot of references, as most of the information on Scandinavian elves are common knowledge (at least to Scandinavians). But I am afraid that people will demand such references, since this subject is very sensitive to information from popular culture and original research. That said, I think the article is excellent.-- Wiglaf 08:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Have done a complete rewrite of article and have added references.
Very interested in any comments, particularly regarding the images. Searched every place I could think of and wasted hours of my life, searching for public domain or free images, to no avail.
Have trimmed the images down from what was there before in order to use fair use images only sparingly. I think what remains is essential, but I'd appreciate any comments about them, or any other aspect of the article. Thanks. Rossrs 14:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added lots of information on the older article, essentially re-writing it, and I think its finally up to level with WP:FA. I've think I've maintained NPOV. It may require corrections in prose and language. Please comment or edit on any mistakes. Colossus 17:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Trying to get more Belarusian stuff up to Featured content. I am not sure what yall suggest in putting in here, but since it is a national anthem, I figure you guys have a few suggestions. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I first found this article a few days after British Columbia had their referendum on it that barely failed in no small part due to a lack of voter knowledge about STV. Over the past month or so I, with the help of a few others, have been working quite heavily on it, and I'd like to get some fresh eyes to give it a good once over and make suggestions. I'm particularly interested in opinions about the articles length, as I believe it may be borderline too long and redundant in some parts - smoke em out if you spot em. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 06:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the content is very good. Two things that should be tidied up are stray sentences that should be merged into paragraphs, and incorporating the html links in text into a list of notes using Wikipedia:Footnote3. If you're worred about the length the section on counties that use STV could be move to another page and described in this article in summary style, the table of contents is very long and this would help reduce the lenght of both the article and the TOC. I don't think it is too long as is, except for the lenght of the TOC.-- nixie 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, hi - I have never engaged in Wikipedia editing before, but I noticed what may be a very minor typo: the line, "Example: in a 1,000,000 voter constituency with 4 seats, the quote would be 250,000 votes, not 200,001." I am presuming that the intent was for the word "quota" rather than the printed "quote." Hope that helps?
Prior Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1
Well it failed an FaC nomination, so I'm doing this again for some dispassionate input from people outside the Ancap/Anarchist POV debate. Saswann 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It's been expanded a lot since it was created, but there isn't as much to add, because it doesn't have the notoriety of modern books like The Giver, Lord of the Flies, and Harry Potter. Toothpaste 02:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Aguably one of the most important cases in the history of the Supreme Court of the U.S., the article on Brown has recently undergone substantial expansion. I am hoping that this is on the way to featured article status. however, I am concered that the subject of the effects and outcomes of Brown are undercovered, and that there may be too much "really, my home town isn't full of bigots" explanation of the situation in Topeka. Therefore, I humbly request peer review.... Rick Boatright 23:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, the ==Myths== page needs to be cleaned up. -- Micahbrwn 03:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, the self-congratulatory photo of Thurgood Marshall and company dates to the earliest versions of the page. Monroe Elementary, I added in order to show the "Not a dilapodated tar-paper-shack"- but you're probebly right that what I need to do is just make a "Monroe Elementary" page. what sort of cleanup of myths do you have in mind? -- Thanks Rick Boatright 03:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
ouch. You're right, but that sure feels like stepping into a Roe v. Wade tarpit. But you're right. Rick Boatright 13:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Is [2] this the sort of criticism you have in mind? I -think- I can re-work Justice Thomas position from Jenkins.... or perhaps quote his opinion. Rick Boatright 15:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Re: "cleanup of myths", I really don't know what I have in mind. To be honest, I don't think that section even belongs there... since its essentially a whole lot of what Brown isn't. Also, the listing of myths with bullet points doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps it would be better to reformat into concise (and brief) paragraphs. Something along the lines of how snopes.com debunks urban legends, perhaps. -- Micahbrwn 16:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I understand a ==References== section, and understand the idea of using footnotes to printed sources, but I think I strongly disagree that a long discussion of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote etc should be incorporated into the body of the article. Doing a reasonable job, and balancing the -as you pointed out- ample secondary literature, would require a book length text. As to the socio-political implications, that mostly happens under the various "Civil Rights" pages, _all_ of which refer to Brown. But I'm afraid I'm one of those who feel that the old 32K limit for articles was a GOOD thing, and that a CLUSTER of articles around a complex issue serves the wiki better. Rick Boatright 20:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. That I can do. as to 10 books, HA! Way way _way_ over that now. Working WINNOWING the references section before posting it.... Thanks Rick Boatright 22:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok folks, I tried to pull off a FAC, but I failed big time. Of the issues that were introduced:
I took care of the photos, so only two remain (one is GFDL and the other has been released for us to use with no problems). My pal Leo is taking care of the sales figures and the "made to order" question. I need suggestions on how to solve all of these issues and try to make this article Featured. Also, if you also wish to object to having this page being on the Front Page, make the comments on my talk page or this talk page. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
July Collaboration for the South Korean counties & cities WikiProject. Looking for advice on what should be added, subtracted, or polished in order to bring this article up to the highest standard. Thanks in advance! -- Visviva 03:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Stevey7788's comments helped me to see the disorganized state of this article. (Thanks!) I've done a general reorg and edit, and I think I have solved a lot of the cohesion issues. I'd appreciate any feedback on what more needs to be done. For instance... would it be a good idea to spin off and summarize the "History" section? -- Visviva 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is a failed FAC candidate. I believe the majority of issues have been taken care of; but to help ensure a smooth third nomination by me; I'd like to submit the article to scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with any sections that could/should be added to make the article comprehensive; but given my passion for the subject matter I'm not the best person to figure out what those might be. - Roy Boy 800 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
It's good, but still needs improvement. Creators section should be renamed into Production or something similar and include information such as when filming began and ended. I felt Synopsis was confusing and in some cases way too detailed. When an important charachter is introduced take the time to introduce that charachters role (not just using parenthsis) and maybe a little of that charachters personality. When describing events avoid too much detail, and I also felt the synopsis section used to many short awkward sentences. Influence and Awards should be moved after Synopsis and Themes should be moved between Synopsis and Influence and Awards. Also you are missing information about the Cast. Use Casablanca (film) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films as guides.
This sentence: "It could be argued the strong visuals serve to create a dehumanized world where human elements stand out. Furthermore the relationship between Deckard and Rachael could be essential in reaffirming their respective humanity." Sentences like this need to be avoided at all costs. Who is arguing this? What is "it"? For example instead say, "Other critics have countered that...". MechBrowman 15:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Second request. Tell us anything that needs to be improved on the article. -- Winnermario 01:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Another fork article for Order of Canada. Unlike the other one I nominated for PR, I have pictures for this one and it has not been listed for VFD. However, I still think we could feature this one without placing it on the front page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is a fork of Order of Canada, which also has Featured Status. I just want to see if this article is good enough to become Featured. I am not sure if article forks are good subjects for Featured status and I also do not think we can really put this on the front page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This article has been substantially expanded and mostly re-written since its previous attempt at FA status. I believe that all the issues raised in the previous FAC have been dealt with. I think it's now pretty much ready for FAC, and I'd like to have some input as to what remains to be done to get it there. Thanks in advance... — Johantheghost 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the inline links recommended in WP:MOS-L is that in the printer-friendly and aural versions of the page, the URL is rendered inline, which — particularly for aural rendering — disrupts the flow of the text to an unacceptable degree. I've therefore created the Panama Canal Authority article and linked to it, as recommended by Nichalp. — Johantheghost 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Profile of the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. It's been here for nearly a year and nobody has touched the substance. I'd really like opinions about its chances as a FAC. PedanticallySpeaking 15:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
What controversies? Someone outside the American arts community has no idea what this means. It is short of biographical information, is he married, does he have children, what did he do between 1983 and 1992 etc. The dispute with Donald Hall seems to have been quite significant in the relevant circles and should probably be described in more detail. Since he is actually an artist himself I would also expect to see more in depth discussion of his work like the biographies of other featured writers. -- nixie 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I reckon this is now a reasonably complete account of this famous poet and playwright's life and work. Would value any further comments or contributions. -- Ngb 17:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi. In fair division, a branch of theoretical economics, there is a thing called spite where a player acts against his own interests in order to hurt someone else. So I started a page called spite.
But the concept is much broader. How about some knowledgeable wikpedian adding some examples of spite/spiteful behaviour from literature or politics or psychology?
Robinh 13:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone should give some empirical examples of this, and elaborate on the psychology aspect, it can be a considerably large motive to human behavior. Raskolnikov The Penguin 02:35, 2005 July 21 (UTC) García Lorca
I re-submit this article for peer review, after loads of fab photos and diagrams have been added. I drew all the Mahjong tiles by myself — sheer drudgery, but I'm happy with my contribution. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe this is a largely comprehensive article about the general principles - no specifics yet. However, this article may require proofreading, and perhaps more detail (for one thing, no one I know knows the American rules, so information on American rules may be questionable). Still, comments are desperately needed. kelvSYC 05:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you go into this article's history, you can clearly see that someone, using an IP beginning with 172.xx, has spent an incredible amount of time and energy preparing this for Wikipedia ( see the talk page). However, I am not going to nominate it yet for a featured article, as I feel that something does need to be improved. Does anybody here have any comments on this article? — Stevey7788 ( talk) 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This article has been peer reviewed before, but I wasn't able to implement all the suggestions at the time. But I've tightened up the prose, deleted some stuff, added footnotes, added a bunch of fair use pics whose copyright has expired -- I'd love to find some photos, but can't find any that aren't copyrighted. Anyway, this is a fairly important feature in Byzantine architecture, and I'd love to bring it up to FAC quality -- any suggestions? Thanks! The PNM 02:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This is one of the most important social theories and quite an interesting subject, I think. Over the past few weeks I have research this subject, written the article on social evolutionism based on sociology coursebook and various online sources, and after some discussion on relevant talk pages, merged this article with the cultural evolution now a redirect. I'd like to hear your opinion on the article in its present state - especially as I think it is comprehensive enough to be FAC soon. I am also considering moving it to socio-cultural evolutionism. Any comments highly appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
One of the better articles about a ship from the Gundam Universe, I think. The page has been upgraded and added to several times, and now I'm looking for additional comments/suggests/thoughts on how to further improve it. TomStar81 09:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to get feedback on this article, which I believe to be a pretty good one, as I hope to nominate it for featured article status. Thanks for any help! KHM03 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Previous peerreview at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kammerlader/archive1. I hope for more inputs to this article about what I believe to be the first breech loading rifle in widespread service. I do hope to be able to make this into a FA-worthy article at some point, and any pointers would be helpfull. WegianWarrior 13:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
'Fate of the Kammerladers' section is very small, can use some expantion, now it looks like a stub section. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What about the "Various Civilian Models" of the Kammerlader? Guapovia 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sysin made an excellent start, and I believe this article has the potential to be a featured article. People are starting to straggle into the newly-created Greek Wikipedians' notice board, but it would be useful to have non-Greek Wikipedians look it over, since we want this to be relevant to as broad an audience as possible. -- Jpbrenna 8 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
My issues about this interesting article are:
— Theo (Talk) 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Jenmoa has questioned my objectivity in this matter. Personally, I have no objection to the idea that these points might be made in a manner that is more politically correct, as long as it is clearly expressed...
I've made a few changes... -- Sophroniscus 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I know little to say about the subject. I know of no Denomination that allows such Communion, though I would suspect that most follow the Roman Catholic rejection of the Apostolic practice. But who am I to say? -- Sophroniscus 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It is clear that Lutherans have, at least, considered the issue under the name Paedo-communion. -- Sophroniscus 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Several things:
— Theo (Talk) 22:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This ought to be WP:FA on October 21. It has had significant expansion since its last peer review (the credit doesn't go to me). More comments please and also try to keep it in the public eye. I think the consequences section needs work. Dunc| ☺ 21:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been tinkering with this article lately, and am interested in seeing how it could be improved further. A lot of people have very strong opinions about the organization in question, which has made keeping it NPOV difficult, but I think progress has been made. One area in particular I'm not sure how to deal with is that a lot of the critisism seems to be a little outdated, referring to previous issues that have been resolved (to whatever degree). Suggestions? Fieari 07:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is the second peer review. ( Archive1) The article has seen consistent improving since the last peer review; and I believe it meets Featured quality with the exception of references. Which at worst can be sprinkled into the article and refer to compilation books. - Roy Boy 800 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A river that I have hitchhiked along the course of, swum in, fallen in, drunk from, canoed on and generally got very familiar with, so a while back I thought I would work on its article which was formerly far briefer than befits the fourth longest river in Africa. Anyway, I'm no hydrologist, and have taken an awful lot of content from the 1911 Britannica, so would really appreciate more eyes on the article to tell me what else it would need to bring it to featurable quality. Worldtraveller 21:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the comments! I am now working towards including the sections suggested by the wikiproject. Have added infobox, and formatted units. Points 4 and 7 will be covered as I work on point 1, point 5 I will do some research on. Point 6 I'm not sure about, is that a general style guideline or more of a personal preference? My own preference is to alternate images left and right. Worldtraveller 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The article looks very good. Please include any references you have used in a reference list. I have two questions - has the river been used for transport? Does the flooding affect human settlements? Fauna would make an interesing addition, there are probably at least a few species of freshwater fish that are endemic to the catchment.-- nixie 03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Have done further work on this now, including a bit more about wildlife, a section listing major towns, expansion of transport section, and a few other small tweaks. Any more thoughts, anyone? Worldtraveller 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to get some feedback on this article. Voyager640 19:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Over the past months I have been researching the available knowledge about the Coriolis effect. I believe the subject of the Coriolis effect merits an article with the length it now has. I think it is an underestimated part of Newtonian dynamics. The Newtonian dynamics of the Coriolis effect is rather counterintuitive, and I felt there was a need for animations. The animations in the article are manufactured by me.
(There are in all 6 animated gif's. Thus the article will take a long time to download for people with a telephone connection to internet. Is there a recommended maximum Kilobytes for text plus images?)
I have tried to structure the article in such a way that the level of difficulty builds up gradually. The article is long because I take it slowly. My research of information available on the web has convinced me that a lot of people are quite baffled by the Coriolis effect.
In preparation for applying for Featured Article status I am requesting peer review now. I will have to convince other people that the Coriolis effect is really cool physics and worth such a long article. -- Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is an amazing example of the well explained and detailed stuff you get on Wikipedia that you wouldn't find elsewhere. It's not my article in any way, but I think it deserves to head towards featured status as an example of the interesting things you can find on Wikipedia. Please check it out and see how it could be made more accessable to a broader audience, or have more information from the talk page included within the main article. -- Pengo 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Not a self nomiantion. I just thought it was a great artical. Almost FA standard Richy 10:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Iran
A "landmark" band, and the article is kind of complete. I just need to know what else it needs to get FA criteria. Igordebraga 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
It has a lot of information, and other than game descriptions (and I know, the game descriptions should be trimmed), I'd like to know what else there is to do. -- A Link to the Past 21:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I believe this article is close to being ready for FAC, but need input from other editors to make it even better. Anything thats needs to be added, rewritten or taken out? Would also appriciate copyediting by someone with a better grasp of written english than myself =) Old request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jarmann M1884/archive1. WegianWarrior 07:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi I think the article should be considered for FA status. It probably needs more references but is comparable with the best high school articles on Wikipedia at the moment. Please comment. -- Celendin 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think there is a shortage of art-related featured articles on wikipedia. I believe the article on Mondrian can become one. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and nicely fleshed out. However, I think improvements can be made. I am specifically looking for feedback regarding tone and content, but I'd welcome any suggestions that would help the article -- Sophitus 22:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Also, some of the sections tend to be a little dry; describing the paintings in an almost clinical manner without giving much actual insight or context: how were these works received by the art community at the time, etc. Flowerparty talk 23:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I, regrettably, have no background in Nubian history, but several months ago I began working in this area to try and fill in some of the huge gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of African history. I am quite pleased with this article and hope to get it up to FA standards in the near future. One problem is that it needs more images. I am pursuing a couple avenues to get some, but if anyone else has some images of sites or artifacts from this period they would be much appreciated. The article also likely needs some copyediting. - SimonP 13:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I am reopening this peer review in the hope of more new comments. After a failed FAC nomination, this article obviously needs further review and editing to improve it to a level whereby it is worthy of featured status. I will now be actively looking to improve the wording of this article, and would like some feedback about where to focus my attention. Harro5 11:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I have written this article about the Eggerland series and would just like to know if readers think it's clear and explanatory. Do the pages about individual games help? I thought it was good to keep the general series info in one big page and game specific info in separate pages. -- Sivak 21:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten this article from a list to probably the only article on Wikipeida that comprehensively covers the diversity of fauna from one country. I'm looking for comments about the text, is there anything confusing, or that you though would be mentioned and isn't; and also for comments about the balance of topics covered. Thanks. -- nixie 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I've cleared up the problem with the lead, and copyedited the bulk of the article, although I'm sure other editors will pick up more errors. The summary style link is there since I intend to have that article up in the next few days. Thanks. -- nixie 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean: "After the Miocene, fauna of Asian origin could have become established in Australia."? Does it mean Asiatic fauna possibly became established in Australia or does it mean they had the opportunity to?-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
There was a former peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Milpitas, California/archive1, but unfortunately it was unsuccessful.
Please take a look at the article and comment on where it needs to be improved, and how we could make it into a featured article. The Milpitas article looks great but looks like it still needs work. Milpitas guy 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this article has a lot of interesting information, but is really a mish-mash. Other than a lack of organisation, can anybody think of other ways to improve the article? -- Alexs letterbox 10:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Needs references, plus the images (certainly the first two) would look better with descriptive subtitles ie "Set in 2026, the iconic Gothic skyscrapers set the tone of the film" or something better :D. Finally, a critical acclaim section at the bottom, highlighting the films success / popularity (of lack of), should see it right! -- PopUpPirate 11:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's grown from the ill-descript article it was to a potential featured article. Any suggestions for improvement? -- A Link to the Past 03:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I read his New York Times obituary before reading this and after a hasty assessment I only found one error (or was he divorced 5 times?). Our biography compares well. Although we never do mention this incident which the Times refers to 2 times: "Mr. Fonda continued acting despite major illnesses. After a performance of Clarence Darrow in 1974 he collapsed from what doctors called total exhaustion, and a pacemaker was implanted in his chest because of a heart-rhythm disorder." lots of issues | leave me a message 09:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Both the Post and Times obits never mentioned this event from the Oxford American National Biography: "On 14 April 1950, while Fonda was still playing Roberts, his wife, who had placed herself in a sanatorium, committed suicide after it became clear that Fonda was seeing another woman named Susan Blanchard. Less than a year later, Fonda and Blanchard were married, and Fonda adopted her daughter Amy." Should it be included? lots of issues | leave me a message 12:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
We would like to know if the this article has covered all aspects of the Indian economy. Suggestions, critique and help will be most welcome. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
On the whole the article looks great, it's well written and srtuctured. But, I don't like the numbered list in the begining of the history section. I think the see also interspersed throughout the sections should be added to the table of topics, or listed as {{ mainarticle}} where appropriate, they inhibit the flow a bit. There is no good mention of Indias balance of payments situation, is it a net exporter or importer- this could go in the table and/or the text, also what is the national/foreign debt of India, for example is India still servicing loans from development organisations like the IMF. The notes should probably just be listed numerically, breaking them into sections makes them a bit harder to follow.-- nixie 10:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should put some of the images and tables on the left because there are way too many sitting on the right-hand side. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This article's been expanded from a stub to a fairly concise description of the song and its history. With further expansion, I think it might be a good candidate for FA (and provide an alternative to all those Beatles songs!). I greatly appreciate criticism, and especially any contributions that could help the article. Thanks. :) Volatile 16:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
A good article, the only thing I'd say missing is its success internationally on the charts. Remember Aretha was a worldwide star, not just in the USA. Also, its certification from sales wouldnt hurt and possibly an external link to its lyrics. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Just looking for some helpful information or tips. Wanted to try and get this as a featured article. 65.71.127.228 05:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess, and causing general puzzlement over how to clean it up.
Is there anyone here with knowledge of Lie algebra who'd glance over it to see if there's any sense at all in it? Thanks in advance. Tearlach 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
A noteworthy event in the United Kingdom (of course). What do you think this article is missing? Talrias ( t | e | c) 21:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I've done these changes myself. Deus Ex 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Remarkably well-written and NPoV article, especially considering the subject. It has been laden with tags by a single contentious editor, who also occasionally reverts. I looked at the article in an effort to mediate this dispute, and was impressed by the quality of the majority text. His points of difference should be resolved; they are listed at some length on the Talk:criticisms of communism, especially the one actual accuracy dispute (about the relative productivity of Hungary and France); and any other questions of accuracy and PoV raised. Septentrionalis 17:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Previous Peer Review can be found here
The last review was over a year ago and the article is still good but is looking very messy and sprawly. I'd be very grateful for some further ideas about what we should do with this one. -- Spartaz 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Purge the gallery and put the images in appropriate places. Wiki-newbie 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Is Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan) ever going to be worthy of an article? If not, delink it. Check the other red links as well, the next one I saw was flight risk which seems unlikely to ever be made as well. It's quite long and, as you say, 'sprawly'. Could the information about specific country's policies and any of the other 'list' type information be put in their own articles and summarised in the main article? The gallery could go as Wiki-newbie says, and some of the images located elsewhere on the page. There are very few cites for the length of article, in particular the history has only one. It seems very disjointed as well, I think it should be cut back quite severely and only general information included, with as little country-specific stuff as possible (as there are too many countries to mention them all on the page, and to focus on particular ones is POV). Trebor 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of country specific articles. Perhaps some of the stuff can be hoved off there with links from the sections of the main article. Thanks for the advice so far. very useful. Spartaz 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Red Links can be de-wikified Doctor Bruno 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In-depth article on a notable song, which came at a major turning point in the careers of The Temptations (all of which is discussed in the article). What can be done to improve this article to possibly FA status? (I'm trying very, very hard to find appropriate images, but I'm having no luck. Can anyone help?) -- FuriousFreddy 14:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Just resubmitting this peer review. Not much response last time and the article is now much more complete than it was at that time.-- Will2k 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This article just went through a Spanish Translation of the Week, and it shouldn't take much to raise it to FAC status. I've been working on it quite a bit, and I would like to see that; however, it still needs to be shortened a bit (it's 2KB too long), a better introductory summary, and inline citations. On the good side, the material is stable, comprehensive and accurate; no edit wars are going on; and the images don't have any copyvio problems. General comments will be appreciated too. -- Titoxd 21:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that I do not think this article is ready for FAC yet. Some issues:
In short, I do not think this article is tightly on topic if the topic is going to be about the geology of Venus. An easy fix to bring this article more on topic would be to rename it surface features of Venus. But answering the above questions would be even better. -- mav 18:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the word "geology" used to describe other planets? I've seen the term "selenology" for the Moon, though I have no idea how prevalent that is. Is there another term? John Barleycorn 23:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Almost all of the images are much too dark on my monitor.-- Bcrowell 01:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I intend to bring this article to at least a good of quality as History of South Carolina, which I also wrote, and intend to eventually make it a featured article. Currently the article is a monstrous 68KB, so later it will be broken into separate articles for separate time periods until it reaches an acceptable length again. It also needs sections on Arizona past 1856. The latest section that I added today needs to be wikified, which I'll do tomorrow, but before I split it up after that, I'd like to have all of it reviewed together as a whole. Thanks in advance. Toothpaste 02:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an OK article, but I think it has potential, and I'd like to know what should be done to make it a great article. I would like to make it into a Featured Article. AlbertR 19:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This article definitley needs some help. Is there anyone who can add some better sources 129.170.90.88 21:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This is the talk page to discuss ways to improve the factual accuracy of the article. Please contribute by finding factual sources to contribute to the article or to dispute the nature of the article. One use has problems with using internet references. Is anyone able to find textual references? Willing to? 129.170.90.88 21:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This is the talk page to discuss ways to improve the article. There has been a lot of arguing over the factual basis for the article and I am hoping that some helpful people are willing to find information on the subject. 129.170.90.88 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, a FAC was closed recently about this artcle, and it was starting to get very ugly. Because of that, it was hard to fix some objections. I want to know if what do I need to do in order to get this up to Featured Status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
For those who cannot seem to find out what some objections here, here is the list. I added my comments in the brackets:
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I know that Wikipedia is not a place to mask offensive words with asterisks, some African Americans could be severely insulted by the mere presence of the phrase "Gay Nigger". The article is also the target of reckless vandalism and has seen many disputes. We need more research on what what the goal of the article is. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If I read WP:WIAFA correctly, stability refers to "Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day." While things are getting added day to day to the article, the concept of the article remains the same: Intro, members, attacks and reaction to them. But, if those sections are being changed around on a constant basis, then I can see why the article is not considered stable. As for the edit waring, this is what the above site says "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." I do not see vandalism as an obstacle to the edit waring, since every page gets vandalized in their life on the Wiki. Plus, the last problems took place a month ago, but the issue was resolved when the waring edits left the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"The GNAA have succesfully trolled Mac OS X users several times." What consitutes a "successful" troll? Who establishes the criteria? How can this statement be factually accurate and verfiable? -- Tabor 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Regarding that the page in question is a failed featured article candidate, but has since received substantial additions and content suggestions in its discussion page, I suggest a peer review be done to correct the remaining issues. I did not write any of this article, but I was extremely impressed with its level of content. Cwolfsheep 04:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The article has improved heaps since the last time I looked at it. One thing that will need to be addressed for FAC is the lack of refernces, there are few inline or general refernces given, are the texts listed as further reading actually references? A consistent system of referencing should be used throughout try {{ ref}} {{ note}} or Wikipedia:Footnote3. You may get asked to add a war box, see it in use on Algerian Civil War. The article uses some good PD images, but the images that are fair use will need a raionale as to why they are fair used added to the image page, lots of FACs are being held up due to image issues at the moment. Is the Glossary of Armed Groups complete? Nambia doesn't have any groups listed.-- nixie 03:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like this pear-reviewed. I think it's main problem is that it hasnt got ne photos, despite us having some good ones already here and there. Brööñëë 18:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Failed to become a featured article a while back, but is ready for a thurough peer review. -- The_stuart 13:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
A very interesting theory in the future studies. Something that may change greatly our world. I think this article is quite comprehensive, well written and has pretty pictures (graphs). Do you think it is ready for FAC? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I watch Black Hole High and am a fan of this actor, and I thought he deserved a strong Wikipedia article. I have improved and expanded it as much as I could from the version that was present before ( diff), and while I am fully aware that it is far too short to be a featured article at the moment, I was wondering whether anybody here had any ideas on how I could improve upon its current state. Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Machine 02:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been claimed that the Portuguese persecuted the Nasrani. Yet no evidence of that claim was brought forward. How many Nasrani were killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Do we know the identity of anyone was killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Why were they killed or imprisoned by the Portuguese? Was this merely the result of military and imperial ambition, or was there more to it?
The only evidence presented is that a few books were banned; and the Synod of Diamper made some changes to the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari. It is clear that Aleixo de Menezes was motivated by misguided zeal. It is clear that a schism was the result. But that hardly seems to justify the term persecution.
-- Sophroniscus 23:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
(1) Thanks. I have done as requested.
(2) My real concern is that I detect bias in the article. It was more than 50 years from the Synod of Diamper to the Coonan Cross Oath. And it was some 36 years after the death of Aleixo de Menezes to the Coonan Cross Oath. That doesn't seem to imply to me that the Nasrani were being persecuted, at least in the normal sense of the term. Certainly it seems strange to blame the schism on either the Synod of Diamper or Aleixo de Menezes, though they had a part to play. But it seems likely to me that the Nasrani did these things to themselves. But who am I to say? I know nothing of Indian history. Perhaps it is my own bias that is at issue. I suppose I could raise an NPOV objection. But that seems a bit harsh, coming from one who admits his ignorance.
The Nasrani people along with the Malabari Jews were definitely persecuted by the portuguese. Here are some references of Nasrani persecution from the texts of H. H. Meyers, Benjamin George Wilkinson, Ph. D. and others. The links to these texts are also provided.
"The Portuguese not only persecuted and killed all the bishops as they came from Antioch but their metran .... ..... And those Syrians who opposed his designs were persecuted and put to death." ("The Syrian Christians of Malabar" p.23).
see here: http://www.present-truth.org/Bible-Battle/inquisitive-3.htm
"The Portuguese also inaugurated slave trade by seizing able-bodied men and women ..... .... slave market in Goa." ("The Syrian Christians of Kerala", 1963, p.31). by S.C. Pothan
See here: http://www.present-truth.org/Bible-Battle/inquisitive-4.htm#CHAPTER
"Besides hunting down heretics, Jews, new Christians, and all who were accused of Judaizing (that is, conforming to the ceremonies of the Mosaic law, ..... ...... the Goanese Inquisitors also replenished their dungeons with persons accused of magic and sorcery." from The Syrian Church in India, by Rae p. 200.
see here: http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/truthtriumphant/chapter20.html
Robin klein 15:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe this article has finally reached the FAC standard. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering what people think it would take to get this up to the level for WP:FLC. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this a while back, I'd like to get the communities opinion. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like this artilce to be peer reviewed, basically for grammar, spelling and flow. -- Oblivious 03:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an article on a topic that attracts a lot of readers and editors with strong feelings. I think it's getting to be FA quality, and would appreciate any feedback.-- Bcrowell 23:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
A forgotten Eastern European war. One in which Moscow was captured and the fate of the entire region was decided. Comments much welcomed, I would like to submit it to FAC soon. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The edit conflict has died down now and I feel it is time to get a wikipedia peer review of this article. It is a natural step considering its size and how much work has gone into it. -- OrbitOne 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, AndyZ t 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Sissy baby
I find it is a good article about an important yet not very well known battle of WWII, but most of the article was made by one person, Oldsoul, with minor changes by me and a couple other people, so I think it really needs more people to look over it, especially people who did not make it. I know references are missing, but I cannot get the formatting right to do them, I have tried, but kept failing. say1988 17:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this page. It took me three or four days to pull together the bulk of this article. I've just posted a response to the talk page which addresses my current concerns. Chief of which is that many of the paragraphs now read too long in my opinion, and many details and descriptions may serve the overall article well to be shortened somewhat. In any case, the more minds the better on this one, I know we are all in it for the right reasons. Here's to FA status... Oldsoul 10:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
This article just underwent some major rewrites as part of the new Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Ultimately, I think our collaboration would like to help articles reached featured status. I have no experience with this process, and would appreciate any advice the reviewers could offer for what steps we can take to further improve this article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this up over the course of a few days last week, it was a DYK feature and got some other attention that way, which seems to have culled out most of the typos, etc. What do you think? Is there anything which could be tightened up, anything which is unclear, anything missing that you can think of? The goal was to write an article which 1. explained the supposed principle, 2. explained its history in the US and elsewhere, 3. explained how we know what we know about it. Thanks. -- Fastfission 11:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhh, not the foam plasma pressure fallacy again! Doesn't anyone read the FAQ anymore?
Nuclear Weapon FAQ Sect 4.4.4.2.2, Radiation Channel.
The implosion pressure does not come from the filler foam.
It's possible to build and fire a Teller-Ulam device with a completely empty radiation channel in the radiation case.
The foam is there to retard initial liner and pusher ablation long enough for the energy distribution to even out smoothly.
The pressures generated are trivial compared to those required to implode the secondary.
What generates the implosion pressure is the ablation (effectively as if it were an in-turned rocket motor) of the fusion pusher layer of the tamper/pusher assembly.
A large portion of the tamper/pusher ablates away in this process, leaving a thinner tamper layer up against the now-compressed fuel layer.
I know Moorland's article said that the foam plasma pressure was significant, but Morland wasn't a bomb physicist, and we know a lot more now than we did then. These inaccurate descriptions have got to stop, they're grossly misleading everyone.
I can rewrite the article's implosion description sometime this week, but for now, it flunks peer review on that basis. Sorry. It's not your fault for believing the Morland article, but Morland got that detail (and several others) wrong... Gotta get it right here. Georgewilliamherbert 09:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it getting too long? Should it be broken into chunks? What related articles would you suggest? Any suggestions would be appreciated. -- Jpbrenna 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent read. However, there are no external links. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 23:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This article was clearly not from a neutral point-of-view. It's poignantly obvious, because every time Muhammed, the Prophet, God's messenger was mentioned, the editors wrote "peace be upon him," which is a Muslim custom. Furthermore, it's poignantly obvious it's not from a neutral point-of-view from how the founder of Wahabbism\Salafi is described:
This article is of such low-quality that it should be removed. But I doubt I would be able to, and even if I could, Wahhab is famous enough that he deserves an article. However, I am not educated on the subject, so anyone that is, or can research it, please do. 69.138.24.96 19:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This is probably better handled according to the clean up process. Mozzerati 19:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
One of the most famous football (soccer) clubs in the UK, and WP doesn't have too many FACs (in fact, only one by my count) that relate to the sport. The article is fairly comprehensive, but then I've written a fair bit of it myself so I'm probably biased. All contributions welcome on its content, especially for how well it caters for the layman. IFK Göteborg is the only FAC related to a football club and may be useful in comparison. Qwghlm 17:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I believe all the issues raised above have been satisfactorily resolved. If there are any more points of discussion then please air them. I think the article is now getting up to FAC standard (though it could do with a picture of
Highbury as well).
Qwghlm 13:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario/archive1
The article seems to be nearing featured status. There should probably be a few more references; my question is, what else is left to cite? Also, is there anything other improvements to be made to this article to reach featured status? — The Gr e at Llama talk 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This was a recent failed FAC nomination largely through not receiving sufficient support votes. There were no actionable objections but obviously everything is capable of some improvement. If anyone knows the location of a suitable GFDL good quality colour image then that would be a help. David | Talk 13:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't expect this to become a featured article or anything, but I just want some feedback on how to make it better. I just finished the entire article myself, and I just want some outside opinions on it. Any help is appreciated. Clinevol98 06:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I've extensively edited the text for style, but it's still rather clumsy, and too detailed for such a minor movie, in my opinion. I think the plot summary would benefit from reduction to a much smaller synopsis. TheMadBaron 00:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is still a stub (actually limited to only the 2001 election) because it lacks any information about the detailled results of the former elections. If somebody (a New yorker, for exemple), as any information who could help to improve this article, he is welcome.-- Revas 21:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article to get some opinions from outside the WP:LDS project regarding how much farther it has to go until it reaches featured article status. I do not assert that it is there, it needs more work, but a laundry list from this place will be helpful, I believe. Cookiecaper 14:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The way the text is structured is quite disjointed, there are too many short paragraphs or stray sentences - they should be merged into continuous paragraphs. All the image copyrights will need to be checked and anything claimed as fair use will need a rationale for fair use written on the image description page, anything used with permission will also need to be changed to fair use or removed. As someone not especially familliar with the LDS, I think the section on his prophecies should be expanded to a paragraph that summarises his key prophecies. One last thing, a consistent footnoting system should be used for inline refernces, see Wikipedia:Footnote3.-- nixie 10:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to state that the thoughts or opinions of you all are important, but should not be discussed publicly in a popular resource. It is immature, and unless you have firsthand evidence of any of the things you've said- then please refrain from sharing them.
This is a small step in my goal of improving the quality of the Meteorology category. This request for peer review is made in the hope of it someday becoming a Feature article.-- demonburrito 04:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Supercells are usually found isolated from other thunderstorms in the warm air in front of a squall line, although they can sometimes be embedded in a squall line. They can last hours—they are quasi-steady-state storms. They usually to track to the right of the mean wind—they are said to be right movers.
I've expanded this article extensively - previously it was little more than a stub. I've made it about as good as I can without outside input, yet I would like to be able to make it better. Hence, I would like it to be peer reviewed. I'm looking for advice on style, formatting, content, everything. Let me have it! Euchrid 09:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
A quite comprehensive and extremely well-illustrated article. Besides copyediting, an expanded lead, a layout revision, some general scrutiny of the factual content (of which I am not terrible knowledgeable) and a proper reference section, I feel there isn't much from keeping this from being a very suitable FAC. Other suggestions for expanding or revising the article are more than welcome. / Peter Isotalo 14:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this article is exellent and IMO should be nominated for FA status. I would like to listen to other peoples' opinions before doing that though.-- Exir Kamalabadi Criticism is welcomed! 09:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think it has a shot at making it to Featured Status, but here's what I see needing to happen before we get there.
What do you all think? Karmafist 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) First Peer Review can be found here
You have a great foundation to build a featured article! Bon chance! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, we've had two peer reviews, a couple of major blowouts, mediation, some RFC's, and a massive rewrite. Personally, I think this version is pretty good, but I've been working on it for some time now. Please note that the article is still listed as in mediation, as a controversial topic, and that this has been a problematic article. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. FuelWagon 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback so far. I would just say in response to the idea of cutting the article: sure. except as soon as you cut out one accusation of witchcraft, someone will cry bias. Motions and affidavits of the most absurd accusations and assertions were filed and the court found most of them to be utterly without basis. But if you cut one affidavit, someone will howl that we left out so-and-so's accusations that Michael practiced statanic rituals on Terri, drank her blood, and danced on her grave, and therefore say the article is biased. They'll put the accusation back in, and it will get reverted, an edit war will flare up, and the only stable solution we've managed to reach is to describe so-and-so's accusations and then give a full account of how the court viewed them, what the guardian ad litems said contrary to them, and so on. The end result, of course, being an 80k article. If there's a way to shorten the article, that won't get reverted by those who wish to list every accusation of witchcraft against Michael, the only idea I canthink of is to break the 80k article into some sub articles. I'm not sure how, but I think if you just delete something, you'll see someone eventually put it back in, only they'll put in one POV versus all the different POV's. suggestions for how to cut it into subarticles would be appreciated. FuelWagon 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This is way too long and way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I think just the first 2 paragrphs, plus a little summing up statement of its significance should suffice. There is no need to list EVERY doctor, EVERY diagnosis, EVERY school she attended, etc. While this topic is obviously important to those close to the person, it gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to other articles, and there is really very little in it that would interest a general public. What is needed here is some perspective. For example, the article on George Washington is less than half the size of this article. Is there really twice as much to say about Terri Schiavo than about George Washington that would actually interest a general public? This is not the forum to dispute issues, rather it is the place to put things into their proper perspective and to show how they fit with other aspects of knowledge. What is the historical significance of this case? Why should we remember it in 20 years? What does it tell us about the United States in 2005? Nrets 17:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Reults from automated tool:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy t 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time this article has been submitted to Peer Review. The first peer review request is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Christina Aguilera/archive1. Since the previous request, the article has improved signifigantly, and I'm planning on seeing whether or not this is prime time for WP:FAC. -- LBMixPro (Speak on it!)
First attempt to write an article at this level. Would appreciate feedback. 83.245.16.227 14:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Mike Dash, 12 Aug 2005
Peer Review request was originally placed in Talk:Leigh Richmond Roose by mistake - copied here by Qwghlm 11:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Further descriptive information on the article - Leigh Roose was a Welsh football (soccer) goalkeeper who played at the turn of the 20th century, who was well known for his eccentricity. Qwghlm 11:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I am nomintaing this article for peer review because I am a big fan of Katamari, and would like to see it become a featured article. I think it is really close, especially after adding the sections on setting and characters. I have commissioned a friend of mine to draw some pictures of characters from the game in order to avoid ugly copyright issues. Any suggestions and/or improvements are welcome. RyanGerbil10 17:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think I have made some changes that address your concerns, but if you have any more, I would be glad to edit the article further. RyanGerbil10 05:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm resubmitting this article for peer review with an eye to get it up to FA-quailty (and perhaps even FA-status *smiles*). It has previously gone thru a peer review in December 2004 and it was a (failed) FAC in June 2005. I have extensivly rewritten, expanded and referenced the article over the last few days - so in essence it's a completly updated article compared to the one I submited for FAC earlier. I would like to hear any comments y'all might have on this article about one odf the first repeating rifles adopted by an armed force anywhere in the world. I do believe it's close to FA-standards, but inputs are needed for the last polish. Also, if someone with a better grasp of written English could look over it, it is appriciated. WegianWarrior 08:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This one has mostly been written by me. Some sections seem slightly fan-ish, so it'd be great to get some outside views on it. I think it's fairly complete, but if you can think of anything missing I'd be glad to add it. I might take it to FAC if there are no major points raised, but it's probably much too short right now to stand a chance. So, what do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 00:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've researched and written this article and I think it might be a good example of a current biography of a noteworthy person, but I am looking for peer review to help make it the best it can be. I am particularly pleased because recently the Ambassador visited the page and gave it good marks for accuracy. Is it possible for something like this to become a FA? What improvements would you suggest I make here? This page was previously listed on DYK. -- JRP 03:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The article would need to be bulked out quite a bit to become a FAC, see Helen Gandy for a recent example of a reliatively minor polictial figure that reached featured status. For instance what did he do before he became a diplomat, there could also be more detail on his diplomatic postings and on the scandal that occured while he was in Bahrain in addition to his other posts. -- nixie 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The article appears to be detailed enough for Wikipedia:Featured_articles; this peer review would be to prepare the article for nomination. Cwolfsheep 14:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm the primary author on the Cornea transplant article (taking from a redirect to an article), and I think in the future it might make an interesting featured article. However, I also feel it needs a "broader context". I work as a secretary for a corneal ophthalmologist, so I think I can give a good layman's perspective on the issue. So fire away and let's see what can be done. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 08:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The article doesn't really mention when a cornea transplant is needed. How common is the procedure, is it usually successful?-- nixie 13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Previous peer review. Well, the article has been expanded drastically and many parts have been rewritten. I believe the concerns from the previous peer review about the criticisms section have been addressed, and I even added in the velvet sweatshop mention for good measure (even though its not in the common criticisms article!). I'm sending it FAC after this - so if you have a comment do not hesitate to chime in! Its time for Microsoft to become a featured article! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Needs improvement. Here are some examples of why the text needs to be sifted through thoroughly and thoughtfully:
It will get there, but needs LOTS of work still. Tony 13:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Object subject matter is still too evil to be made an FA. Borisblue 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys! I've already talked to Simon. Tony - a couple people I know have went over this and submitted fixes since then, and they also seem to disagree with the "LOTS of work still" comment, although I do admit your help is quite good on this (and I might agree with you about the lead too). I still need to add some of Simon's stuff from above, so I'll let everyone know when I'm done with that (and some other things like the lead etc.):). Thanks for the encouragement Borisblue! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
OK GUYS - I added a bunch of stuff - including stock info, corporate structure info, user culture info, and a section heading to corporate affairs. I also reworked the business culture part, moved out some stuff from the trivia section and merged it with the article, and took care of a few of tony's suggestions. I'm still unsure about the intro though - most people I've talked to say it's fine, but Tony seems to disagree. Perhaps you could highlight which parts are covered too much and too little? Anyway, so how does the article look overall guys? I think its VERY close to FA status :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, can't look until end of week. Tony 01:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey - don't worry about it - this thing has nearly twenty days left on it :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that I rewrote the intro quite a bit, somewhat to address Tony's concerns but also for my own flow pickiness. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
OK - originally I was going to wait until this thing ended but I had time to do a word-by-word copyedit, and at this point there's literally nothing else I can think of. So thanks to everyone for their comments :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Second peer review (first here). I had some insanely helpful suggestions the first time, which I believe I have taken care of. So, any comments are welcome - particularily is it sufficiently readable to the laymen-non-programmers and is the intro good/comprehensive enough? Thanks! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 08:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The editors of this page are seeking more input and efforts into this article before it's submitted to FAC. Deryc k C. 07:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Despite containing controversial issues, this article was applaused for achieving neutrality, unbias and NPOV. It deserves more attention and even the FA status. CG 14:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've finished forking this article from the novel's article and done a lot of cleanup. I'd appreciate a fresh pair of eyes to see what else needs doing. Rob Church Talk | Desk 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks. Got inspired after a recent trip to Rome, and decided to create articles for some of the more noteworthy and favorite Roman spots. Added the Temple of Hercules Victor article via a link on the Forum Boarium article. Nice, short and sweet. Thoughts and input? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Archive 1 This article is the current GA collaboration and suggestions on how this article could be improved to FA status would be appreciated. Tarret 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The prose needs a lot of work. I've been working on it, but there are still some awkward phrases, such as:
It's starting to look very, very good. 2a is the issue. — Deckill e r 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I am starting to dislike the peer review system. We place the FF8 peer review up for a week, and people end up posting their comments on the talk page, which is absolutely not their fault, but it shows how this system is starting to become obsolete. It seems that FAC is turning into the new peer review...— Deckill e r 06:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The prose still needs work; I'll go ahead and finish my copyedits in a bit. — Deckill e r 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)