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, have become featured article candidates, 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 (~~~~).
I think this is quite a comprehensive article and deals fully with the subject and related controversy. I know it's not the most exciting of topics but I'd be eternally grateful to anyone who could take a look and give their thoughts/opinions/recommendations/criticisms (anything!). Thanks Globaltraveller 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some points and recommendations I'd like to make:
Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your review. In response to your specific points:
Thanks again Globaltraveller 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Benedetta Tagliabue is mentioned in the article. If there is to be an article of 100% architecture it should be on an Architecture of the Scottish Parliament Building article, as opposed to purely here? Looking at some similar articles on other buildings they devote a large proportion of their space to history and events surrounding these buildings. Even the principal article of the Eiffel Tower (far longer than this one), I can see (even in my limited French) has quite a lot to say on it's history and other things not purely related to design. I will nevertheless try to incorporate some other architectural sources into the text, to give a wider range of references. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the building incorporates all the elements that are part of it - its function, its history and its design (and, yes, it's controversy and problems) You certainly could create another article purely for the Fraser Inquiry. There is so much that could go on that article. I'm not suggesting the article be renamed, but if one wants to concentrate fully on architecture (ie no history, no function, no location, no controvery, no problems etc), then a distinction has to be made. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I initiate this last peer-review, just before submitting the article to WP:FAC. The article has already gone through two peer-reviews ( here and here), and two more independent reviews by User:Yomangani and User:Eusebeus. Please, check Talk: El Greco. The purpose of this peer-review is to collect any further suggestions or to locate any deficiencies I may have missed despite the repetitive reviews and copy-edits. Thanks!-- Yannismarou 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I switched all of your news sources from cite web to cite news, so that all of the information, including publication date, would be listed, alphabetically by last name of author. Because I didn't know how to use a different date format (I hate the cite templates), that meant I had to switch the last access date format on all of your refs. All of your references are now listed alphabetically, taking last name of author on news sources into account.
The division of References into
creates a problem with the citations list. When the reader needs to find full detail on a source given in the citations list, s/he should be able to do that by going down the References list alphabetically. But, because the references are divided three ways, that means the reader has to peruse three different lists in order to locate full information about a given source. I'm not sure how to solve that problem - I'd probably be happier to see one, combined Reference list, to make it easier on the reader. I'm not sure the reader needs to know if a source is online, in print, or whatever. (I haven't had time to read the article, and considering the holiday season, may not find time.) Sandy ( Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Some brief thoughts and comments:
Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Using my finest-toothed comb...
Except for the above points, this would tick all my boxes at FAC. Best of luck to you! talk to the HAM 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
DNA is arguably the most famous molecule and requires a comprehensive article. This page has been extensively re-written and referenced and will be submitted to FA once the peer-review process has brought it to the required level. Both editing and suggestions on content and format are welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is quite some way from being finished. I'd like to get it into shape to submit as an FAC, so any and all comments would be gratefully received. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please write what you think about this article if there is anything that i have missed please tell me. Senators 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was requested to review this article for GA status: I don't participate in GA, but can review it anyway. I fixed some things.
Didn't have time to read the article. Sandy ( Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 470 Nm, use 470 Nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 470 Nm.
[?]OK, I know not many lists go through peer review, but I'd like to get this up to featured list status, and need some feedback to help figure out which direction to go in. If you have time, please take a look. I would especially appreciate feedback on:
Of course, any comments at all are most welcome. -- Visviva 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel like the images clutter the page - actually, as I was initially scanning the list they were about the only things I looked at. I vote keep! I also think you have a good number of citations. Here's a few comments for your perusal:
This is an amazing amount of work already. Good luck on your way to FL!-- Will.i.am 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the lead section? I guess, looking around, these are supposed to be strictly an introduction to the list, rather than the topic. Pity, though; maybe I'll start Zoology in Korea for the latter purpose. -- Visviva 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I spent a while creating this page and posted it earlier this month. In my opinion it's comphrensive on what it intends to list, and could soon be ready for FLC. There are a few concerns:
Other than that, though, what could be done to bring it up to FLC standard? HornetMike 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As of yet I haven't improved the lead, as I'm still working out what to put, and done the proper citation format just because I haven't had time yet. Otherwise, I'm not sure about splitting the list by league. I feel it takes something away from the purpose of it. I don't think it's too hard to edit, as there's only ever going to be 92 entries. I could remove the League column entirely, I suppose, if people think it makes the table too big. Perhaps the club's box could be shaded to indicate their League as an alternative? I dunno. HornetMike 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The last article I brought here got zero reviews, except the automated one :-( What I have done with this article is translated the version from fr:, added a public domain portrait, and trimmed some of the images. Any comments, criticisms or improvements would be appreciated. DVD+ R/W 07:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The most obvious thing is the vast number of red links. You need to consider whether each of them are worthy of their own article (I'm not certain whether notability on French WP should correspond to En). If they are, could you try and start some of them, even if it's just a stub. The end sections need to be changed to correspond with WP:LAYOUT. Some pieces of information aren't in standard places (e.g. the birth/death place in the brackets straight after the title) - compare with a biographical FA to standardise. The French quotes aren't particularly useful if one does not speak French. There don't seem to be many citations - you can cite pages from the books used in the bibliography if you have them. Trebor 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is a great addition to en WP. It needs to be condensed. To accomplish this, sub articles on the saltworks, the theater and the ferme generale might be considered. Why isn't there an article link to utopianism (architecture)? I strongly recommend this. Agree with comments about too many red links, such as street names. These probably should not even be in the article (on the English site) and certainly not as seperate articles. I would especially not carry over any red links that are also red in the French WP. In places, I felt the french terms needed to be defined within the text upon the first occurence, such as Ancien Regime. Glenn4pr 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Very comprehensive article - I've made some minor prose comments below.
I started to edit this and make inline coments, but then stopped as it dawned on me That while is very interesting and comprehensive, it reads like a translation, I think it now need to be completely re-written, incorporating all the facts that are there. No condensing, or too much deleting. I don't like the way work and personal life are mixed in the same sections. It reminds me very much of the early history of Sanssouci which had been admirably and faithfully translated from the German, but had to be ripped apart and put back together again, by someone thinking in English to make it readable and concise to English ears. Sorry to be blunt. I think DVD R W you have now to reduce the facts to basics, then write the page yourself in your own words using those same facts, but also look him up on some internet sites and architectural books and add a bit of your own originality to it. Try to look at it again with fresh eyes, you have probably studied the text as you translated and fallen into French mode. Giano 13:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Could do with some extra eyes to help improve this article. Any feedback from the community would be appreciated. Thanks - Coil00 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Great work. One thing I'm curious about: "the first signs of psychosis". This seems to imply that there was a true psychotic break subsequently. Is that the case? Marskell 08:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are after Portal:British Army, then please go to Wikipedia:Peer review/British Army Portal/archive1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfireboy ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks a pretty decent, well ordered article to me, but what needs to be done for it to reach GA or even FA? Thanks RHB 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel a peer review for this article would be useful. Any suggestions are welcome. Cєlαя∂σяє Talk 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Needs a general review and tips on improvement. Inge 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning on running the article as an FA candidate, thus I'm putting it up for peer review in order to fix any problems it has, and to obtain advice as to how it could be improved. All help will be sincerely appreciated. Regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has been Good Article for a while now and I would like to make the necessary modifications/additions to make it an FA. Also I would like to know if adding more footnotes is a good idea or not. Essentially every line can have a footnote, mostly from Tacitus or Dio Cassius. Any other feedback would be much appreciated.-- Eupator 16:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion at the start of the month when I first started working on it, it survived that nomination and has undergone extensive revisions since then. The article could use some copy-editing (my weak spot) so if you want to help out there, great. But otherwise, I'm looking to see if the content makes sense, is it well organized, does it flow, how can I improve it? Balloonman 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'd value your input on how to bring this article to FA status. It's already had some scientific peer review. Thanks! Willow 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like this to be a featured article, even though the car isn't one people would aspire to own, it's certainly one that is well-known, and should be a featured article. Any advice on making this a featured article would be very helpful. -- ★SUN STAR NET★ 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is the current GA collaboration. Any critique on how the article may be brought to FA status would be appreciated. Tarret 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an A-class article. Do you think you could actually reference the Bible? Wiki-newbie 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
See my review of Computer for my thoughts on Wikipedia articles covering broad concepts.
I'll keep an eye on this peer review and make further suggestions after you have addressed these. -- Ideogram 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Past week's medicine collaboration. Comments/suggestions on getting it up to featured article standards? -- WS 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This is generally pretty good. The lead is a bit long at 5 paragraphs (per WP:LEAD) - perhaps some of the more specific details could be left until later on, and a couple of the paragraphs combined. The first 3 sections are okay, some of the pictures could be on the left to give the article a nicer shape. I would've thought the order of sections should be gone Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment (sort of chronlogical), but if there's a standard for articles of this type then ignore that. Again, I might be wrong, but Pathology sounds like it should be a subsection of Diagnosis. The end of the article needs work, Prognosis and History are very short sections with only short paragraphs within them. (Could the prognosis paragraph come at the end of Treatment section?) The {{fact}} tag obviously needs citing or removing, and the issues raised on the templates need to be dealt with. It seems well-cited throughout. If the end of the article could come up to the standard of the start, I think this could be featured. Trebor 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable 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.
[2]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There no seperate peer review process for portals, so Portal:West Bengal is being nominated for a peer review here. The Portal: West Bengal is a relatively new portal, and is well-maintained. Please provide suggestions/comments for improving this portal and elevating to featured status. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note: For archived old peer review of the article West Bengal, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/West Bengal/archive1
Other things look fine.-- thunderboltz (Deepu) 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to bring this article toward FA status. I think it's within reach of being a GA at least, and I'd like comments about further improving it. I'm aware that it currently lacks inline citations and am already gathering sources so I can proceed to put those in place -- that's the biggest need I see at present. There is also one unsourced statement, which I am looking into. Any comments on content, style, etc. would be appreciated. Shimeru 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Another user suggested this article might have the potential to become a Good Article. I've been doing a fair amount of editing on this page for the past two or three months, and I think it's a relatively decent article, though maybe a little too long and focused on history(?). Anyway, I wondered if anyone might have an opinion on how it could be improved and if it has any potential. Carmelita 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is pretty comprehensive now. I'd appreciate constructive criticism, particularly with regard to passing a GA nom. Of course, if you spot some grammar/spelling issues, then it would be probably just as quick to correct them rather than leaving a message here. Similarly, I don't really find vague statements, like "some sentences are poorly structured", useful. The JPS talk to me 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I created this article, and am currently its sole contributor. While I'm not claiming it to be complete, someone who's outside my brain probably has a better perspective on what would best improve it. In particular, is it accessible/does it provide adequate context? Are the methods descriptions too vague? Is there enough/too much emphasis on structural genomics? Opabinia regalis 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Been working a lot the past month or so to elevate this one (with major citation help from LuciferMorgan). It is a bit long, but the band have a long history, and judging by other comparable music GA and FA pages, it's not that long... One thing I wondered is if it's better to have all cite's the same format - as some are external html links, and some use the footnote style. Thanks for any and all help! Skeletor2112 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I actually think that this article should be a Featured Article Candidate (FAC), but I'm somewhat new to this world, and preferred to ask some help on judging it from older Wikipedians.
The main problem of this article was POV, but I think it's quite solved. Today, he's being vandalised often, so please don't mind if you find something like "I'm the devil and going to kill you" in some part of the article - I'm reverting it as fast as possible. -- FernandoAires 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Great start! Here's some comments which are hopefully not too annoying:
Anyway, this was a fun read, good luck!-- Will.i.am 10:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A guy from 72.26.158.119 questioned me about allegied censorship. Rick Warren's talk page is the best place for we to discuss about this matter. I'm moving the discussion to there. -- FernandoAires 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Has been sitting quietly for about two months. It now finally also got a dearly needed map. Does that mean it were finished? Probably not; I'm sure you can come up with numerous improvement suggestions! Lupo 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
About your statement that It conveys the message that the poster couldn't be bothered to read the article.: first off, its on every peer review (if you scroll down the page), but your statement makes it sounds like I'm singling out your article. Second, the reason why I present them is to be helpful, not rude by presenting suggestions that could be overlooked by peers and as a starting point while waiting for the response of other editors (I have received and read LOTS of complaints about nobody ever reviewing things on WP:PR, so having some semi-automated suggestions is an improvement). Besides, its only a 1-line note, I don't go about emphasizing that you must follow them or anything (they're just suggestions, after all). Sorry about not indicating which specific phrases were being indicated, however I think that most can be found using Cntrl + F and I'm still working on implenting that for other suggestions. And I named it a "peer reviewer" just in order to note specifically its purpose. (Oh and about the " adequately summarize", thanks for pointing that out, I just realized that it would be better on some other template – though in any case it would be hard (esp. with JavaScript!) to determine whether a WP:LEAD would be a good summary for an article – follow the footnote). (PR instructions: please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts , though I invite helpful criticism) After all (especially with my shaky JavaScript skill level), it isn't easy writing a script to accurately parse the text of an article and come up with great suggestions.
And about not bothering to even read the article, well…. I don't spend my entire day sitting in front of my computer reading thru every article there is (as unfortunately many people hope) being posted on WP:PR – when I did try that I got through some 20 articles before realizing it was hopeless. AZ t 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a little bit more information on his early life and career would be desirable, but I have been unable to locate further details. The article is well-referenced and, I think, gives a good, NPOV view of his contributions and notability. I've gotten to the end of what I can do on my own with this article, please let me know what areas for improvement you can identify. Please let me know if you think the article is a candidate for Good Article status. Jacob1207 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Some quick comments:
The article is well-written, overall. I've just skimmed through it, so a more thorough review would be helpful too. JonHarder 04:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
All images needing Fair Use rational were tagged, and redundant text was removed. Requesting new peer review as points from last have been fixed. 123wiki123 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning on running the article as an FA candidate, thus I'm putting it up for peer review in order to fix any problems it has, and to obtain advice as to how it could be improved. As the article has just been written in the past day or two, there might be a few points to make. All help will be sincerely appreciated. Regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, this was a former featured article, mainly removed because I lacked giving it the TLC it needed. I am going to take a stab at this again. I first added the refereces using the <ref></ref> format, which wasn't available at the time I wrote this. Second, the first time around had a picture overload. Now, this only has one photo (which is in the public domain). I took out a lot of the direct quotes, since Babelfish is failing me (and my reading of Russian has gotten a bit better). Is there anything I should expand on before I send this to FAC? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the title was created, it has been bestowed upon ten Belarusian citizens. Out of the ten awards, one was for heroism during military service and two awards were presented posthumously. The first award was given to Uładzimir Karvat (posthumous) in 1996, the second awarding were performed on June 30, 2001 to Pavieł Maryjaŭ, Michaił Karčmit, Vital Kramko and Alaksandar Dubko (posthumous) . [7] The last awardings were to Filaret, Mikhail Savicki, Mikhail Vysotsky, Piotr Prokopovich & Vasily Revyako on March 1, 2006 . [8]
Karvat, a military pilot, was flying his training aircraft Sukhoi Su-27p on May 23 1996. The plane caught fire and was ordered to eject to safety. Unknowing to the ground crew, the plane was going to crash in a area full of civilians. Keeping in mind of the civilians, Karvat steered the plane away until it crashed one kilometer from the area of Hacišča, killing him instantly. President Alexander Lukashenko issued Decree Number 484 on November 21 1996, which posthuously awarded Karvat the title Hero of Belarus. [9] The crash site has been converted to a memorial for Karvat, on which a copy of his decree is placed on the tail fin of the Sukhoi Su-27p. [10] AZ t 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I added another section to the article about it's use on Belarusian stamps. Would this be useful or no? I also saw a television commercial on TB (Television Belarus) on the day of the 2006 elections. I wish I knew what it said word for word, but it mentioned about the great deeds of the heroes and showed a graphic of the medal. I do not have a screen shot of that and if I did, it is not my intent to upload it. I know there was a stamp shown in one of the souces I provided, but it was on WP before and I was asked to take it down by others admins. Other than the grammar, is this article set for FAC? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Any help and advice on re-stucturing the article and tieing it into the areas of Luton (eg Bury Park, Leagrave, Etc) would be helpful. Other ideas for what else is needed to bring the article upto a 'good status'. GazMan7 11:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Seeking to get to GA status. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated, thank you. -- MECU≈ talk 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking for any suggestions on improvements that could be made to the article including technical terms that aren't explained well enough for a non-F1 audience, content improvements, style/tone improvements and any other problems. Looking to improve to at least GA-standard. Alexj2002 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I'm not sure what you mean by materials? Does the article text not describe the pre-race situation enough or is it a lack of images? The latter is not actionable for a GA/FA (although if improvements can be made it's still good to know about them). Alexj2002 17:22, 21 November 2006 (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)
I know this still needs more work. The areas where I know additional work is needed are:
I would appreciate comments about any other areas where improvement is needed, as well as suggestions for the areas I already know about. Also, I learned some information on my recent tour that is not currently in the article. How do I cite a tourguide? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Valley of the Kings/archive2
Hi, I have done quite a lot of work on this article recently, and need some more feedback. Cheers Markh 10:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I am hoping for peer review against the featured article criteria and general review of the whole article by any editor. I've been working on the article for a while with a few other editors, but I'm hoping to get more opinions about the article. I am thinking to self-nominate it for FA status depending on how the review goes. It's my first PR and FAC, and my goal is to respond positively... please be gentle! -- cmh T C 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember trans fat being voluntarily disclosed on many labels prior to 2006. Am I wrong? Glenn4pr 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking to see what else this article might need in order to become a good article. Is there enough information to describe the event? Is it understandable? Are the grammar and spelling in good shape? Is there another source of information I might have missed?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatdr ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
Per Andy Z and Hurricanehink, three of suggestions were filled, including adding information directly from NCDC, adding the nbsp's into the text, which led to breaking in impact into a state by state format which lengthened the article. I can see an infobox being useful. Since this system was not a tropical cyclone, I'm not sure what should be included or not included in such a box. Suggestions? Thegreatdr 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate your thoughts on the above article I created some time ago on an alternative and emerging form of waste treatment. -- Alex 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My take:
Sorry if I've given this article a hard time. Well, at least you won't face these problems when you are going through FAC, which is signifigantly far away for this article.
Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on the Baseball Mogul article a lot, but it's mostly been a solo effort, so I was looking for another perspective to help me out and make this a better article. So far, I've deemed it a "B" quality because I feel it has all the features of a B article, but I would love some advice on how to improve this article, especially from the perspective of a non-gamer who does not know Baseball Mogul. Electricbassguy 07:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Given that there are very few psychology GAs/ FAs, and also given that i've been coddling this article for over a year now, i think it's ready for prime time. Don't want NPA personality theory giving psych articles a bad name, ya know? i want this one to be good. Tear it apart, please. JoeSmack Talk( p-review!) 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
It's always nice to see serious work on a social sciences related article. Check history for bot suggestions removed by Psychonaut; my suggestions are: 1) more refs; there are still paras without a citation 2) 'Other notes on the stage model' is a strange title, please rename 3) Explain (in lead) why the sections of 'Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)' and 'Examples of Applied Moral Dilemmas' (decapitalize, plz) are relevant here 4) 'Notes' should be renamed 'Further reading'. 5) pictures would be nice - perhaps a graph like that on sociocultural evolution would be in order? Keep up the good job!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You're far down the Peer Review page now, so I hope you're still watching. :) Comments:
Kohlberg's stages of moral development are planes of moral adequacy conceived by Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. Created while studying psychology at the University of Chicago, it was inspired when he became fascinated with children's reactions to moral dilemmas through the work of Jean Piaget. He wrote his doctoral dissertation there in 1958, outlining what are now known as his stages of moral development.
Regards, – Outriggr § 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
General checkup, plus, can anyone locate the missing citations in the "Formation" section? Serendipodous 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on this one so far, this could be a gigantic article and I don't envy the discussions you must have had on what to include. I have a few suggestions:
You may want to find someone to thoroughly copy-edit the article. Perhaps not before going for a Good designation, but definitely before heading to FAC (if that's your intention). More stuff (no comma comments, I promise):
Unfortunately I'm out of time, but this hopefully gives you some ideas. Hopefully this isn't too overwhelming, and perhaps I'll find time to do some copy-editing myself sometime. Good luck!-- Will.i.am 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've done some work on this article, and I find myself in need of some other eyes. First of all, I have had some experience with videogame articles, and a little with NES game articles. Second, I know this article is short, and a far cry from good article, but I am in a dillema. There is very little information about a game made 20 years ago, and if it exists it is hard to locate(found some). I am out of ideas of what else to look for or what else could go into this article, as well how to improve this article further. I'd like to say it is a weak to middle B-class article, but I figure that would be objected because of it's size(it wasn't). Any help to make this GA (or better in general) would be appreciated.--
Clyde Miller
23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wondering how I'd go about improving this article. Any feed back would be welcomed. RockerballAustralia 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: it's a stubby, poorly referenced, and grammatical error-filled article.
This list has been completely rewritten in the past fortnight, and I would appeciate feedback to get it to FL status. Thanks. -- Majorly ( Talk) 12:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a nicely established list. Atfer those are taken care of, as some of them affect the lead, I think you try to rewrite the lead so that it covers the entirity of the list better. Before going for featured you really need to focus on getting everything referenced.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I am the main contributor to this article and would appreciate any comments, feedback, or suggestions on how to improve it. I will make brief articles to take care of the red links and need to update the watershed map, but thought I could start the peer review process and work on those minor issues at the same time. I am also aware that the semi-automated peer review javascript finds a problem with the units and a non-breaking space, and even know that the problem is just in the "Course" section of the article, but have been unable to find or fix the problem. I plan to submit this to
WP:FAC when the peer review is done. Thanks in advance for your help,
Ruhrfisch
15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The lines on the map can be confusing. It looks like the county lines are blue like the creeks. This makes it confusing to look at. I know that the county lines are grey. Perhaps this color could be changed. Orange county line perhaps? Dincher 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The topographic/3D map is another plus. add more info on Alvira and the Ordance depot and I think the article is ready for FA. Dincher 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make this a featured list. Any advice on how this article could be made better will be appreciated, but specifically the lead paragraph needs to be expanded/improved. Thanks! PullToOp ə n talk 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please suggest any ways in which this page can be improved to the highest standard. John Talbut 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to work this up to WP:FA standards; if anyone here is able to help, please leave a message on my talk page! If you've got any advice, then please let me know here! -- SunStar Net 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope some of this has helped! Seegoon 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well the nominator didn't say a thing, but I must say, the articles need references. Good neutrality though. Wiki-newbie 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to have alot of POV for a featured article. The article seems to have a bias against Marshall's theory. Comments on how to improve it would be great! Justinmeister 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall review of this artical , how it currently is and what improvements are needed ( Gnevin 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC))
I believe that this article should be nominated for a "featured article" status. Tājik 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please review this article for balance, grammar, format etc. Per Taxman's advice, I have tried to bring a balance to the article by adding information on Religion, Society, Agriculture, Administration etc. If there is anything else that needs to be done, I would glad to comply. Please provide feedback on this discussion page. Dineshkannambadi 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply-->Ok. Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate feedback on what specific aspects of this article need to be improved. In terms of length, is it still too long and if so in what sections. Do you believe that more sources are needed and in what sections? Do you have any other suggetions/comments regarding the article? TSO1D 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on "International rankings" should probably be removed. It would need to be converted into prose, but is then likely to be too detailed for the main national article. There may be place for the information at economy of Germany. -- Stemonitis 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is already listed as good. I believe it deserves being worked on in order to achieve quality suitable for the FA status. I would thus be very grateful to you if you could review the article and suggest improvements. The article has a lot of potential, let's make the most of it! Gimlei 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, here goes. This is my suggestion for how to structure the article. I haven't looked at any of the daughter articles, so this is just from first principles. Feel free to ignore if you have better ideas.
In my opinion the "Miscellanous" section should be deleted with prejudice. If the material in it belongs elsewhere in the article, it should go there; if not, it's not notable enough to belong in the article. I hope that all of this makes sense. Let me know if you have questions/quibbles/vehement objections. Once you've finished restructuring the article, I suggest that you bring it back for another peer review, because it will need to have content looked at before it becomes a FAC.
I should also mention the citation issue. At the moment you have only four footnotes, plus quite a few external citations. All of those should be converted into footnotes, and a minimal standard for citations is probably one per paragraph. Some paragraphs will require quite a few more. MLilburne 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Vanished user talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be hycritical of me to ask for help, but not offer any in return so here are some thoughts on this article...
My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV. Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source. In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference. I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this page is ready for FA status. It's a Good Article, and done a lot of work on it, especially the plot section to shorten it up and remove some redundancies. Hopefully there won't be any major problems, and this can be nominated for Featured Article in a short short. ColdFusion650 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it so funny that for a copyrighted film there are so many free images! I'd find some film shots for the Plot though, like Bond vs Treyalan and Bond actually jumping off the dam. WikiNew 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am trying to get this article become a Good Article. Are you any things that you suggest me do to achieve this goal? -- Ineffable3000 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
(October 2005 Jesus peer review located here: archive 1) (April 2006 Jesus peer review located here: archive 2)
We seem to have reached a relative low point in things to be edited. We've recently instituted a newly re-done section on the teachings section, the only citation needed tag seems to concern the Star of Bethleham and something about Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction I think, and really, it seems most everything else is referenced. So therefore, I think its high time for yet another peer review, Does anyone think this might nearly be an FA? What about A class? The only disputes really left now are some UFO theory on the talk page right now, and occasionally people edit the wording in the excruciatingly discussed introduction and make people unhappy, but other than that, most of the new content proposels constitute adding in good amounts of material which may or may not really be necessary. But hey, if anyone has suggestions about more material, it can't hurt. Homestarmy 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a references section which could all do with in line use. I also think a point the article needs to make is what Jesus was preaching: love most of all. Wiki-newbie 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have pretty much re-written this article since the last peer review and believe I have addressed the vast majority of the points raised. Looking for GA as soon as possible, along with any advice and help to get it up to FA. Thanks. -- Jameboy 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
So, strange situation because I've already said I'd review this for GA but in parallel we have a PR, so I'll leave my comments here and see what happens, bearing in mind I'll review with minimum GA and beyond in mind (thinking of FA in other words...)
Done I've elaborated on this a little. If you can give an idea of what sort of thing you're looking for here, I can probably provide it.
That's it for now. Let me know if I can help more. The Rambling Man ( talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The history of this song, from its time-lost roots through its recording by Led Zeppelin as Gallows Pole, is a truly fascinating trip. I'd like to know, what do folks think would be needed to bring this one up to FA quality? bd2412 T 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope that helps, – Outriggr § 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this article is quite long and it is starting to ramble, anyone just any views and suggestions for improvements? Markh 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that i is transliterated j. I've never seen this before in my (admittadly short) career in hieroglyphics, outside of spanish transliterations. Which transliteration system does that come from? Thanatosimii 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm running out of ideas and research material for this article. I plan on adding some more video game photos and information when I get back from Thanksgiving holiday. I won't be able to answer any comments until Friday or Saturday.
One problem I have is that I’ve referenced AT LEAST 45 different book, magazine and internet sources (and growing) to write the page. So my reference section is HUGE. It is taking up a large amount of space and I may have to split other sections of the page up into their own articles, like the “Famous lei tai fighters of the past” section. I would like to know if there is a way that I can archive my sources, but still have them accessible when someone clicks the citation link on the main article. ( Ghostexorcist 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC))
I have made some changes per manual of style and your own requests. I'm still not done yet. I will expand the opening paragraph when I have the time. Thanks for the comments! ( Ghostexorcist 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
I have been working on this article for some time and would like to see it reach FA status, any comments to help it reach that goal are welcomed. Except changing the picture of the Rhodes Building and providing a photo of the three medieval pieces of plate, I have run out of inspiration as to how to improve it. Thanks. -- Alf melmac 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on the article, take them for what they are worth:
This is a very good article. Balloonman 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while, mostly adding info as it has been discovered. I know that the prose needs some improvement, but I'd like to hear any comments you may have so that I can improve the article and maybe get it to good article status.
I'd welcome anything you have to say. Readro 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted! Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to promote this article to good articles and later to featured articles. So you are welcome to review the language and content of the article. Geo-Loge 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
My 2 cents:
Correction time:
The drive is on to (hopefully) achieve FA-status by the end of the year, so I want to put the article through a peer review first. Some of the suggestions given in the GA-review haven't been implemented, but they have been noted. If you can elaborate on them, please do.
Peter Isotalo 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What steps need to be taken to make this article a GA? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks pretty good, although a few of the sentences seem a little long. Here's a few comments:
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable 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.
[2]*Please alphabetize the
interlanguage links.
[4]
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[11]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 18:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Read very good comment related to the Mac OS X fac nomination. This article obviously requires a peer review. Emx 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We almost completely rewrote this article with a view to getting it to featured status. Any and all input that can help us towards that goal is appreciated. We've approached this article trying to provide a good overview of computer fundamentals and a starting point for the many many computer-related articles on Wikipedia. I realize that laundry lists are frowned upon in featured articles, but considering that this is a hub-type article, I think the link tables are an appropriate and sane way to organize links to sub topics. They certainly are not there to compensate for a lack of article content, since I believe we've done a good job of writing an overview of the core concepts. Thanks in advance for your help. --
mattb @ 2006-11-12T01:04Z
Let me note at the start that articles on general concepts are the most difficult to write on Wikipedia, as they require broad knowledge and the ability to sift out important information from unnecessary detail. Writing an article about a narrowly defined subject (e.g., a famous celebrity) is easier because what can be said is naturally limited.
You have tackled an extraordinarily difficult task and I hope you are not discouraged by my criticism. I think Wikipedia desperately needs to improve its coverage of general concepts and your efforts are appreciated.
For a topic of this size I encourage you to take a top-down approach. Rather than simply reorganize the information other people have presented, create an outline of major topics that need to be discussed. Create sections for each major topic, label them as stubs, and wait for others to fill them in. I used this technique with good results in Operating system.
Hope that helps, and again, I appreciate your efforts. -- Ideogram 12:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-11-19T18:45Z
You asked for help; I gave you my opinion; I'm not interested in having an argument. -- Ideogram 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-11-19T19:39Z
I would loose the tables at the bottom and just do "see also: Category:computers". I think that the table of computer charicteristics should be shuffled off to the side somehow rather than breaking the text. The history of computing should be shortened. The example section should be removed. Overall I think the article needs to be really tightened up. More references = good. - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this article ever since the day after the incident, and it's achieved good article status. I'm getting ready to submit it to WP:FAC, but I'd like some comments regarding the general aspects of the article first. Seeing if it complies with WP:WIAFA would be great. Thanks. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like comments on what needs to be done to get this article in shape for nomination as a featured list. In particular, please comment on completeness, quality of references, and the clarity and soundness of inclusion criteria. Nick Graves 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this (my first article) ready for FAC. Any comments at all would be much appreciated. One problem you may encounter while reviewing, is the checking of sources, many of which are nearly 100 years old, many of which are out of print. (I don't know what one does in this case in terms of WP:V). Therefore, I'd be much obliged if you tell me what needs to be substantiated, because it's unlikely you'll find any sources on this esoteric subject matter. – Nathaniel | T 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was interested in getting comments on what would be needed to get the Dean Smith article up to featured status. I know I need to delete the trivia section and remove the other lists. So any other help would be appreciated. Remember 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am mainly needing help with citations. Online sources for this are few and far between. I used a research paper I recently completed and tried to cite excerpts from The Arkansas Daily Gazette I retrieved from microfilm, however I'm sure I did this improperly. Also, I took the liberty of uploading the pictures of Brooks and Baxter assuming that they were both in the public domain. That needs to be double checked. Finally the article needs a good once over to get rid any POV, weasel words, etcetera. -- The_stuart 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Very nice start, and lots of thoughtful work has gone into the article. Some quick things just to get you started:
Sandy ( Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking now at some random prose - I picked the Baxter responds section:
This passage is problematic on several levels. the oust official --> the ousted official? Unknown reason said twice - redundant. Some commas seem to be missing. Second sentence is entirely redundant; deleting it results in a one-sentence paragraph, which should be expanded or merged into next paragraph.
In the next sentence, we find another redundancy:
The next sentence is problematic:
Curiously is editorializing, which shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Commas seem missing. There is a lot of redundancy.
This is just a random sample. At the bottom of the page, WP:WIAFA, you'll find a link to Tony's exercises for eliminating redundancy. A thorough copyedit is in order. Good luck ! Sandy ( Talk) 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking to see what else this article might need in order to become a good article. Is there enough information to describe the event? Is it understandable? Are the grammar and spelling in good shape? Is there another source of information I might have missed??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatdr ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
This is the first article by User:Kenmore. The guy has been working on it for several months and I think would really appreciate feedback, especially mild advices as to possible ways to wikify and improve the article before it may be considered for featured status. -- Ghirla -трёп- 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My take:
Overall this is a very good article and I found it to be an interesting read. You might want to have the Military Peer Review group take a look at it. But here are my comments:
I appreciate any and all criticisms...don't worry about bruising my ego. Be as harsh as you see fit in pointing out the article's weakspots.
The peer review started without my knowledge. I was planning to rectify the following weaknesses in upcoming weeks:
1. I still need to footnote sections #1 ("Background") and #2 ("Rout of Ozharovsky"). This is especially important because some major historians confuse the Ozharovsky skirmish with the Guard's feint two days later. I want to explain the distinction in a footnote.
2. I have a few more details to add to section #3 ("Defeat of Eugene") regarding specifics of the combat on that day.
3. I need to better research the data in section #6 ("Summary of Results"). There's some controversy as to how many cannon the French lost at Krasnoi -- some say 133, others say close to 200. Also, it's not clear how many of the cannon were lost at Krasnoi itself, as opposed to being guns lost on the 40 mile road between Krasnoi and Smolensk due to Cossack raids.
4. The same holds true for the 39,000 French casualties at Krasnoi: there's controversy as to how many of them fell at Krasnoi itself as opposed to being captured on the march from Smolensk to Krasnoi.
5. I still need to better specify corps and division numbers of Russian and French units involved, and to standardize the manner in which those numbers are used in the article.
6. I still need to do a final grammar and diction dust-up. No doubt sentence mechanics and paragraph construction in many instances need to be improved...from the perspective of being well or badly written, it has weaknesses and I intend to work them through.
Kenmore 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore
Very small comment: is Krasnoi and Krasny the same thing? If they are, it would be nice to provide any alternative transliterations in the lead, but spell it the same way throughout the article. (I believe that when I looked at it it was spelled differently in the figure captions and in the text).--
Will.i.am
11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Two previous peer reviews have suggested changes for this article. A recent rewrite has tried to implement those suggestions, but it has been controversial. Does the rewrite improve the article? If so, how can the article be improved further? -- Alecmconroy 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a few comments and questions.
Some of these are quite open-ended and research may not be available; please do not feel obliged to answer all of them! Fg2 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
MUCH improved since the last peer review. A lot of new information has been added, and all of the issues discussed in the previous peer review have been dealt with. What's the concensus, guys? ( Ibaranoff24 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
Possible areas of peer review:
( Wikimachine 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As always, any pointers or help or suggestions. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never done this before so I'm a bit uncertain regarding procedure. However, I would like to have some feedback on this article - what needs to be done and are there any horrible, glaring errors in this article? Ultimately I'd like to see this thing receive GA status so specifically - what needs to be done to get it there? Gardar Rurak 07:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!
A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.
She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )
Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.
Thank you very much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48 foot.
[2]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)
The article starts well and is well-cited
Good work on the article - it's looking much better. It should easily make Good Article and (I think) would have a shot at featured. Minor things that could be changed:
Nicely done! These are my remarks:
Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.
In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...
Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".
Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.
While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.
In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.
She has also avoided interracial intercourse.
Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)
Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm bringing this article here, to see what other editor's think the article needs work on. I hope to bring it up to FA status, and would like to have any input from my fellow editors. Thanks KOS | talk 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This article recently failed a FAC. I have taken care of the things people objected to in that nomination and would like to know what needs to be done in order for it to become a FA. -- Maitch 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to be hard on this one because you want it to be an FA and said that it failed already. So here are some comments:
My biggest criticism of the article is that it is all over the place. Tighten this article up... Balloonman 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get user comments before nominating this article for FAC. It has a great intro paragraph but maybe it should be split up into sections in the main part of the article? Any other comments are appreciated. Blackjack48 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Since I started editing this article, it has been strides in quality. and depth. I recently finished the characters section and I'm wondering where I should proceed next. -- Twlighter 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in any comments anyone has to make. I'm planning on taking a photo for it, and I'd like to expand it, but somehow not simply pack it with trivia (schedules etc.) so I'd love some suggestions there. Thanks! Dina 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few comments that I had:
Good luck with the article!-- Will.i.am 00:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Article may have POV issues and lacks inline citations. It's marked as A class, however. Suggestions for improving subjective language and rewording would be very helpful. The article seems to rely very heavily on sensationalism and is not an encyclopedic presentation of facts - rather it is an historical interpretation. Not a very good one at that since it uses too few sources to be a decent historical interpretation. Any suggestions on how to make it encyclopedic would be helpful. -- Strothra 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for constructive criticism in order to prepare for a possible FA status. I know there is a lot to be done, but I want to get a base line of what needs to be done. Farquaadhnchmn( Dungeon) 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that I already know about the articles reliance on HHNVault for references. I'm trying to remedy that, but the sites that could be referenced to are either blatant advertising or they don't come up to snub for WP:Verifiability. Suggestions on that topic will be helpful.-- Farquaadhnchmn( Dungeon) 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I, have contributed my best i can do to improve this article. Ofcourse my native is Yanaon. Please review this article and give me suggestions about rectifying, editing inorder to make it a neutral article with good information. Bsskchaitanya 05:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It needs a lot more images, citations (I can't see any), and the small sections which are currently stubs need to be expanded. It may also be worth breaking up the large chunk of text on colonial history. -- The Spith 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I, have contributed my best i can do to improve this article. My native is Yanaon and I belong to Pondicherry UT. Please review this article and give me suggestions about rectifying, editing inorder to make it a neutral article with good information. Bsskchaitanya 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have created this article. Many contents were based upon the article about Moniseur Dadala, just to give enough introduction. But, the sub-sections Murder of Monsieur Samatam and Contoversial aspects and Unsolved questions were written by me only.
i met many of older people (Eg: Wife of Monsieur Kanakala, Ex-MLA during french reign, Monsieur Kamichetty Krouschnaya, a French nationality holder currently living in Yanam, etc) to get to know how was yanam merged in India. I got to know many things that went undercover in due course of time. This article is a small attempt to give real fact about the Coup. Please read the french article by Monsieur Dr. Nallam Venkataramayya. His native is also Yanam but he settled at Pondicherry. Read another article by Madame Madanakalyani in the website caludearpi. Please review my article for modifying, editing inorder to make a good neutral pointed one.
Bsskchaitanya 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone extensive rewriting since the last request for peer review and has since gained 'good article' status. We would now appreciate any advice on what needs to be done to get the article featured. I will try to respond to any and all comments here within a day. Thankyou-- The Spith 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I changed the unsourced fact to one I found a source for. As for the intro, I'm not sure what is best to be done about that. I see no point in repeating information, especially as the content that is there at the moment does not realy fit anywhere else. The only alternative I can think of is making a 'basics of rowing' section at the start of the article, but then you would end up with two redundant introductions.-- The Spith 07:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
M3tal H3ad 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there any pages on wikipedia policy discussing whether the encyclopedia should use British or American English? I'm guessing we are supposed to use the original author's choice, but this article was originally removed from another one, and there are American, Canadian and British contributors.-- The Spith 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Some comments:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. I'll get to work on these-- The Spith 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A first few notes :
-- Ozhiker ( talk) 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was the Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month for Nov 2006. The article has went through quite a few revisions since. From a scientific point of view, it does cover the important parts. The field is too broad for the article to be exhaustive. How about from a non-technical point of view? Tone? Style? Examples? Pictures? Please comment! -- Rifleman 82 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on improving this article since it was a three-line stub, making great strides toward GA status (I hope). No edit has had any controversy or trouble. Please review the article and copyright status of the included resources and make some suggestions for me. Thanks much! Dan, the CowMan 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I plan on coming back to review the entire article for content, but I have to go right now. – Heav e n's Wrath Talk 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I (personally) have trouble with point #1 because my education was split between England and the US. It's all just English to me, I don't even see errors of the sort... lucky me.
Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Compacted some paragraphs today. Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I just made this list of all of the known cetacean species. Would anyone be able to give any feedback on anything I could do to it. In particular any extra fields in the table that could be added. Thanks, C hris_huh talk 11:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall I think the list has a good amount of information and besides fixing the above points it only needs have the referencing completeled. You might consider listing mass along with the picture at size as there appears to be room. Another suggestion is to arrange the species within a family by population numbers so that the reader finds the most common first.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Link the lower level list in a hat note like you link main articles not in "See also". Then kill the "See also" Completely as the :other article is linked in the introduction.
This is coming along nicely! If you don't understand the heading level thing let me know and I can fix it for you. -- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments on any part of the article to try and improve the overall quality. Be as critical as you'd like. :) Carnyfoke 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like some notes as to why the character became popular due to feminism, as described in the lead. Wiki-newbie 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the trivia section needs swift addressing. Integrate noteworthy info into appropriate sections of the article, and then rid of the other info, which'll thus eradicate the dreaded trivia section. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this article to become Featured Article, so any suggestions on improvements (such as unverified claims or grammatical errors) would be greatly appreciated.-- CyberGhostface 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This person is very influencial and looking for comments on how to make this better and what will be required to get it up to featured article status. -- Simonkoldyk 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I put this article up for peer review at the end of November (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Maserati MC12/archive1). If you suggested before please don't feel obliged to again, though all comments are very welcome. I know the first reference (Motor Trend Magazine Review) is heavily used, but if you see their article it is very comprehensive, much more so than any other source. I'm looking to get this up to FA so the things I want to know specifically are:
Please be very harsh so it improves greatly. Thanks in advance. James086 Talk | Contribs 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking for ideas for any kind of improvements to the layout and information of this article. If you know about Mayan languages what does this page need to explain better? What information lacks? If you don't know about Mayan languages what do you still want to know after having read the page? How about citations? Are sources for different information good enough? How is the style? basically all criticism is welcome and will be taken seriously in trying to improve the article. Maunus 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A very good start if anything. I made some tweaks to layout and structure, but there are some issues that could use attention:
Peter Isotalo 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello peers :) This list was nominated as a Featured List and got slammed pretty hard (comments available here). Those of us who know and love this list would appreciate some feedback on what we can do to make this better, more useful, better organized, etc. Thanks!-- Bookgrrl 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Author | Image | Born | Died | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
↓ Michael Chabon | File:Michaelchabon.jpg | May 24, 1963 | - | ||
↓ L. Frank Baum |
![]() |
May 15, 1856 | May 6, 1919 |
I don't understand the point of this list. At what point is someone going to need to look up a list of fictional books? -- SeizureDog 10:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
( Wikimachine 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
Thanks. ( Wikimachine 21:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC))
Done a lot of work on this and wondered if we can aspire to get it to FA status, and if so, what would need to be done? -- Guinnog 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know if ever this article still needs edits, corrections or even a revision. Thanks in advance --- Kevin Ray 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for the some time now, and trying to get it to FA level. I believe most of the suggestions from the first peer review have been addressed and I would like to know if anything more can be added to the article. Other suggestions (like on language and structure) are also welcome. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
*My take:
Follow-up:
Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
*My take
The prose is excellent & and have adequate citations. But I have some thing to point out.
1) There should be a separate subheading ‘Notes’ and put the inline citations there. Inside the reference there should be the most used books and website names.
2) The infobox is not proper. How can a borded area checkpoint have an Indian Urban Infobox?? I am suggesting a new infobox (if it doesn’t exists) with the following parameters:
Infobox name should be border checkpoint
Name
Map
Countries
States
Districts
nearest_city
lat_degrees
lat_minutes
lat_seconds
lat_direction
long_degrees
long_minutes
long_seconds
long_direction
Area
Altitude
Annual Trade (in US $)
Number of people crossed
Main Transacted Items
Regulating Authorities
3)Map – Some thing like a South Asia Map with a close up of the area than the india map.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag ( talk • contribs)
I'll be giving a heavy copyedit to the article to bring it in line with FA standards. The infobox needs to be changed as well as it does not reflect the true ststus of Nathula. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone an extensive group collaboration effort and has received significant changes. Unfortunately it failed the GA attempt, but the mentioned issues appear to have been addressed. (Note that the philosophical aspects of this topic are covered on the Nature (philosophy) page.) I'd like to take it back for another GA attempt, so your comments on this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! — RJH ( talk) 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide additional guidance on what else needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing? -- Guest818 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the WP:PR process yesterday by typographical error of another editor who was trying to send me to WP:PRO. I am in the neighborhood of 5000 edits and am preparing to apply for adminship this month. I think this process may be a good learning process to round out my experiences here at wikipedia. I have only produced unpolished articles which you can see on my user page and think it may be worth an attempt to produce a high quality article. Unfortunately, I am more of an analytical type and not a very good writer. Thus, I am not sure what type of feedback to ask for. I guess anything that will help me improve the article would be fine. I would appreciate any help in finding additional images for the gallery as well. TonyTheTiger 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url=~~~|author=~~~}}</ref>
(see {{
cite web}}).He had a very positive view of ordinary culture and felt the Abstract Impressionists had taken great pains to ignore the splendor of modernity. The Campbell's Soup Can series along with his other series provided him a chance to express his positive view of modern culture. However his deadpan work, endeavored to be devoid of emotional and social commentary.
His work differed from series work by other artists such as Monet, who used series to represent discriminating perception. They showed that the painter could recreate shifts in time, light, season, and weather with hand and eye. Warhol represented the modern era of commercialization and indiscriminate sameness. When Warhol eventually showed variation it was not realistic. It was in a sense his variation in colors shown later was almost a mockery of discriminating perception.
Please see other related WP:FAs for ideas to start with. AZ t 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is a self-nomination on my favorite book. I provided the summary and the recent theme section, and I would like to know if there is any other information that should be added to a book article like this one. I tried to keep the summary manageable and relatively concise, while not leaving out significant plot details (although I did leave out some side events). The analysis/theme section is new and a bit short, and I'm wondering if and how I should elaborate on it. My main question is: Is this article too short, and if so, what information do I need to add to make it a featured article candidate? Breed Zona 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article largely using V for Vendetta (film) as a guide, however I am now somewhat stumped as to how to improve it further. I have used every article I could find on the film, and the DVD featurette. I want to take it to FA, but it seems, kinda empty somehow. What else can I do to take it to FA, besides a spellcheck? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One of your references is not displaying. Wiki-newbie 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Now Ref 7 isn't showing. Eh? Also, were there any more positive reviews? Themes of the film? Try prosifying the Awards section too. Wiki-newbie 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious how this article strikes "laypeople" in general, and specifically I'm curious about:
a) how the telling of the "traditional account" works for people -- should it be more succinct? Contain fewer quotes? More quotes?
b) how comprehensible is the section on documentation for a person unfamiliar with the historical controversies?
c) an anonymous critic wrote on the talk page that it "gives the appearance of telling both sides of the story without really delivering on either." Does it feel vapid? Unfair and unbalanced? There's a fair amount of controversy in this material.
d) would more description of popular devotion -- the stuff that living people do today in veneration of Guadalupe -- be relevant? interesting?
Any feedback is appreciated: the Virgin's feast day is coming up in about two weeks and I'd like to get the entry in top shape... Thanks Katsam 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the article in question, and this is not a "feedback," only a comment on the unpleasant aspects of the Virgin's feast, based on my personal experiences in a Mexican village. Part of the ritual is to wake up the population at dawn with screaming rockets, launched at ten- or fifteen-minute intervals into the black sky. People can say goodbye to restful nights for a week or two (I'd say, ten days is a sure bet). With all respect, it's amazing how deep-seated religious beliefs can turn the normally calm inhabitants of a village into a bunch of nervous wrecks, for lack of sleep. I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of being honored by practices that might endanger the mental equilibrium of the faithful.(User: Marta Palos 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)December 3, 06)
Ha ha! Too bad you're not a quotable source, I've been looking for some examples of actual devotion. Screaming rockets, izzit? Katsam 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Never heard them? If you crave insomnia, go down to the nearest Mexican village at this time of the year. (User: Marta Palos)
Yes, Katsam, I'm very new. Thanks for the advice--I'll check out the discussion page. By the way, I had no intention to step on anyone's religious toes; I merely wanted to point out the sometimes not too rosy aspects of religious rituals. Amigos? (User: Marta Palos 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)) 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)) Dec. 6. 06, 2:44 (MST)
Actually it wasn't the screaming rockets I was worried about, but my remark about the somewhat crazy rituals in general I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of. (Maybe she'd even have a good laugh, watching them.) Although I still stick to my view, I'm getting into deep waters here, so I'd better quit the subject. Que te vaya bién! (By the way, I'm of Hungarian origin.) ( Marta Palos 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC))
A few presentational points to start with:
Hope this is helpful. I'll try to come back later and address your substantive questions. MLilburne 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
(I love gigantic pictures, but you're right that they're stylistically unencyclopedic -- and I put in a little explanation of the Nican mopohua.)
Thanks for the citation comment, I knew it in my heart but hadn't yet accepted it...I guess I'm off to change all those citations into footnotes (aargh). Thanks again, Katsam 14:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been busy adding a few "citation needed" tags to the article. You shouldn't view these as criticisms of your work, they're just a useful way of indicating where people might expect to see citations. It would probably make GA status without them, but certainly not FA status. Now, on with the substantive comments...
Hope these are helpful comments. I'm going to have to take a break now, but will come back to the rest of it. I'm being hard on the article, but this is because I feel that it has a lot of promise. With more citations, a bit of prose improvement and some expansion, it could definitely be worth submitting as a FAC. MLilburne 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Those are great criticisms, really useful. I made a Codex Escalada entry, which I'll summarize in the bigger article. And I'm going to edit the "traditional account" and "symbol of Mexico" parts as per your suggestions.
I believe the "explicit" Zumarraga comment is referring to the fact that Z. mentioned a Guadalupe, but didn't mention the apparition story. Stafford Poole -- and I believe DA Brading as well -- think that the mentions of Guadalupe could refer to Guadalupe of Extremadura or some copy of her image. It's hard to know how much detail to include.
The other thing that I'm unsure about is what to do with uncited sections made by I-have-no-idea-who-a-million-years-ago. I hate to see those "citation needed" tags, and would prefer to take stuff out and put it on the discussion page rather than have the page riddled with questionmarks -- on the other hand I don't want to be rude to the previous editors.
Once again, thanks very much for your criticism -- it's really helpful! I'm a college student and I wish I got such lucid comments from my professors... Katsam 07:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It turns out I dreamed up Zumarraga's mentions of Guadalupe. What I was misremembering was: there was definitely a shrine to a Virgin of Guadalupe at Tepeyac hill, even way back -- it was mentioned by eight bazillion different historians, priests and letter-writers. However, there's quite a bit of textual evidence to indicate that the Guadalupe at Tepeyac could have originally been something else -- like maybe a copy of the Guadalupe of Extremadura. So: mentions of "Guadalupe," completely backed by the evidence -- 16th-century mentions of the apparition? Not so much. (Maybe I should mention this in the article.)
Is there a "dealing with controversy" wikiprinciple? I've been editing with the idea that the miraculous investigations -- like finding figures in eyeballs -- are interesting (and thus notable) and that I should keep an even, neutral tone vis-a-vis the historicity of the apparition account. But I think the bulk of the evidence is on the antiapparitionist side. It's a little hard to parse -- L'Osservatore Romano seems to make a good case for the documents but then my best history book, by Stafford Poole, seems to utterly demolish any apparitionist case. I should go read some "religious figure" pages -- maybe I should go find Shroud of Turin!
You've been so encouraging I've been thinking about trying for FAC -- I really like the idea of the article being on the front page for Guadalupe's feast day (December 12). But I don't think it would be considered "stable" when I've rewritten half of it in the last couple days, and it doesn't seem long enough either, and there's still so much more that could be fixed/added --. Maybe I won't...
Thanks for your help, your criticism has been very motivating. Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
One more round of comments:
Thanks, I'm trying to fix that stuff now -- cool program -- Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I printed out this article to copyedit today. I only got through the first two sections so far, but tell me what you think of these suggestions:
Introduction
You think the first sentence should read "Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Virgin of Guadalupe (Spanish: Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe) or Guadalupe is a Marian apparition and a 16th century Roman Catholic icon." ?
I like the Paz quote and think it expresses well the importance that Guadalupe has in Mexico to both religious and non-religious people (they say in Mexico "hasta los ateos son Guadalupanos" or "even the atheists venerate Guadalupe"). But I'll put it up for discussion on the discussion page. There's another, perhaps less sardonic quote attributed to Carlos Fuentes where he says "It doesn't matter whether or not you're Christian, if you don't venerate the Virgin of Guadalupe you're not a Mexican." If the other editors on the discussion page agree maybe we could substitute in that quote...
That particular image IS the Virgin of Guadalupe (as allegedly discovered on the tilma of Juan Diego in 1531)...that's the 16th century Roman Catholic icon described in the lead paragraph. Would it make it clearer if the lead paragraph said something like "Roman Catholic icon (pictured on the right)"?
These are minor concerns; I actually don't know if they would be correct changes or not.
History
Quarma 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your time Quarma! I can't do any substantitive editing at this moment but later this weekend I hope to tuck into the article and will take your suggestions into account. Take care --
Katsam
01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is very comprehensive. It definitely needs some work before it passes WP:FAC. Is anything missing? Is there any trivial details that need to go? I've also asked the Trains WikiProject to peer review the article. That page can be found Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Rapid transit. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments. -- Selmo ( talk) 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of these regional railways were first built to operate in one direction from a city centre terminus, but some have been extended across the city centre, sometimes running in tunnels. By making multiple stops in the city, they can offer suburban passengers a choice of stations and also provide useful transportation within the city. A notable example is the Paris RER system, where (in co-operation with the city's transit authority) several pairs of existing suburban lines running in opposite directions from the city have been extended in tunnel to join up and form new through routes across the city. They are provided with frequent service and, within the city, the same fares as the Métro are charged, providing an integrated network. In Tokyo and Osaka, Japan private companies operate the world's most extensive suburban railways, each with their own fare system that integrates with the entire system. In German-speaking countries, the Paris style system is called an S-Bahn Italian-speaking countries such a system is called Linea S or Treno Suburbano, where as in Spain it is referred to as Cercanías. AZ t 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say the article does not need a greater number of images, but it does need a greater diversity of images, such as a picture of the inside of a rail car (with people in it), a monorail/elevated train, etc. Right now the pictures seem too similar. A panning image of a train would also be a good image towards the top. Maybe later tonight I will look for featured images of rapid transit. Cacophony 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I found the Extent section very confusing. Also all references to specific railways was a bit distracting. I think mentioning the most notable rapid transit systems with a minor description in its own section, then keeping the rest of the article very general would be the best way to deal with this. Also shouldn't the LA system be mentioned somewhere. I would like to work on this article. Ratherhaveaheart 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the sections need to be rewritten. The content is good, but it isn't in the right order.
I've moved around some stuff and rewritten other stuff in the article. Personally I feel it's got better structure now, but I've modified to much to be much objective in the matter any more. The history section is still a mess, and should become a seperate article. Futhermore, subway station architecture is a really interesting and important matter that could cover many paragraphs, and should too. Some research has to be done on the matter though. Otherwise I feel that something has to be done with the introduction. As it stands now it's IMO cluttery and concerned with trivia instead of main topics. My main concern is that the sentence about tunneling techniques is far to technical for an overview, and that there is not enough about the role of the rapid transit in the city. Otherwise there have to be more citations. Still, it's beginning to look good :) Arsenikk 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Much recent work has been done on this. What needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the unabated hunting of the species by humans for house pets or for trade has contributed to its decline. Hunting tarsiers to sell as pets was until recently, a thriving industry. Because of its adorable and benign appearance, many have been lured to keep the Philippine Tarsier as pets. This demand fuels the capture and illegal trade of the animal further diminishing its remaining number.[17] Moreover, the life span is 24 years when living in the wild , but only 12 when in cages and taken cared of by people. It is also known to die from psychological damage when around humans because its instinct is to be out in the wild. Moreover, its reduced lifespan in captivity is due to the fact that it is easily distressed by being displayed and physically handled during the day contrary to its natural biological rhythm.[17] AZ t 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That's all I can say for now...otherwise, I find this an informative (although it's a little heavy on the "Conservation" section :) --- Tito Pao 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have done extensive work on this article and am trying to get it to Good Article status. Comments on all aspects would be appericated. -- Ted87 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like any comments or suggestions on how to fix this page. I believe it needs some form of an overhaul--some sections might be able to be their own articles. More or less, if you have had any experience on working on articles by bands please give me some input. The main thing this article needs is probably the organization of their works. That and more references. b_cubed 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well first, let me just say TMBG is my favoritest band of all time, and I would love to see them get FA. But now onto the comments:
Rosetta's goal is to develop computational methods that accurately predict and design protein structure and protein complexes. This computational endeavor may ultimately help researchers develop cures for human diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Malaria and many other diseases.
Baker Laboratory is based at the University of Washington. The principal investigator is David Baker, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Washington and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, who has been elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in April 2006. The BakerLab scientific team includes post-docs John Karanicolas, Phil Bradley, Kira Misura, Bill Schief, Vanita Sood, Bin Qian, Eric Althoff, Daniela Roethlisberger, Jim Havranek, as well as numerous graduate students and visiting scientists.
Needs to get to FA status.-- Records 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
NB: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs)
21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[11]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
NB: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the last FA nomination in May 2007, the article has improved and matured quite a bit -- the writing in the lead is better, there are more references than ever (over 150), and the History section has been mostly rewritten and cut down to a reasonable length given the band's active 30-year history. The "Campaigning and Activism" section may still need some improvement, but other than that it's well-written and comprehensive. Here's to hoping it's ready for a successful FA nomination after this peer review! Wikipedia brown ( talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
During a recent FA nomination it was suggested that a peer review was required to check spelling and grammar errors and also to improve some of the prose. Hera1187 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
After completing her GCSE's in Surrey, Melua attended the BRIT School for the Performing Arts in the London Borough of Croydon, undertaking a BTEC with an A-level in music at which point, she began song writing.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3243501.stm New Music: Katie Melua] [[BBC News]] [[10 November]] [[2003]]</ref> It was whilst at the school that Melua was spotted by producer Mike Batt.
As a result of being spotted at a young age, Melua didn't attend
University though she has often stated her desire to do so, citing
English literature,
history and
physics as her courses of choice
should she ever get the chance to go.
<ref>[http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/melua%20takes%20time%20out%20to%20study_1013428 MELUA TAKES TIME OUT TO STUDY]contactmusic.com</ref><ref>[http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/jacek_d/sundayexp2.jpg The Sunday Express]</ref>
Initially it was difficult for Melua and Batt to get air play for the albums lead single, " The Closest Thing to Crazy", but this changed when BBC Radio 2 producer Paul Walters heard the single and put it to be played on the popular Terry Wogan breakfast show.<ref>[http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1841267,00.html Talk the talk] ''[[The Guardian]]''</ref> Wogan played " The Closest Thing to Crazy" frequently in Novmber and December 2003 in an attempt to make it that year's Christmas number one. The attempt was not successful and the single only reached #10 , however Wogans support did raise Melua's profile and when the album was released it became an immediate hit reaching number-one on the UK album chart in January 2004 and the top twenty of the Australian album charts in June 2004. " Call off the Search" reached the top five in Ireland, top twenty in Norway, top thirty in a composite European chart and top fifty in Australia. In the UK, the album sold 1.2 million copies making it four times platinum, and spent six weeks at the top of the charts. It sold 3 million copies worldwide. Subsequent singles did not reach the success of the first. The second single and title track went Top 20, and the third single, " Crawling Up A Hill", only got to #41.<ref>[http://www.purevolume.com/katiemelua Melua Profile] purevolume</ref>
Even having been through the WP:FA process three times, I'd very much like some extra eyes on this article before deciding whether to test its FA-worthiness. Thanks in advance to all who offer their thoughts. :) RadioKirk ( u| t| c) 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get this article up to FA status, but I'll need to find the time to really edit it heavily. Until then I'd like to hear others opinions on what could be done for the article. -- YankeeDoodle14 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer all cite tags. Wiki-newbie 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done some extensive cleanup, and I think this might be close to a FA candidate. One sore spot I can see is under the legacy section, as some might see it as too listy. I couldn't think of a cleaner way to arrange that information, so if anyone else has suggestions I'm all ears. Other than that I'm looking for general feedback as to the worthiness of this article. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on content, but also grammar and writing style, in order to qualify the article for Good Article status. Any suggestions are appreciated. Deet 19:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, check out the Bandarban District article and make suggestions. It would be even more helpful if someone lent a hand at making it better. - Aditya Kabir 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey people, how do I get others to review this article? No takers? PLEASE!!! - Aditya Kabir 11:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This article (which deals with a town in England), has been developing for some time now, and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community.
I (as a significant contributor) would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate step for assistance with this. Therefore, constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now in December 2006, I am re-entering the article for a peer review (automated and manual) in an effort to further the article.
I believe the previous suggestions have been met and thus hope to receive new recommendations for moving this article towards WP:GA. I believe the format of the article is fine, it is any objectionable statements or other such entries which could be brought inline with the more obscure policies of Wikipedia as soon as possible, which I am looking for. Thanks, Jhamez84 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I started working on this article just 2 days ago. I've expanded the article and it now covers all aspects of the experiment. I have more material in the form of a UN report and a study conducted by the Planning Commission. So I can add more information if required. Till now I haven't had time to look at the prose. Any comment is welcome. I intend to make this an FA. - Aksi_great ( talk) 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You can discuss why the project was stopped, and what sort of programming was available. Some specific examples would help. Needs a copyedit too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This article had a lot of work done to get it to GA quality but has since grown stall in progress. I'd like to get some fresh eyes to take a look at it and pin point some areas that need to be worked on to get it up to FA consideration. Probably my biggest area of concern is the quality of the prose. I appreciate your time. Agne 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate it. Agne 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide additional guidance on what else needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing, etc?-- Guest818 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The first of two articles that I am working to get to Good Article status or better, I am primarally looking for comments on the prose of the team history sections, as that tends to be my weakest spot when editing articles. All suggestions are, of course, welcome. Thanks! Resolute 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Requesting a peer review of this page in preparation for FA review. Jazznutuva 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
— Wackymacs 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe this article is in very good condition, but should get some review before heading over to WP:FAC. User:Gopher backer has been the main force in getting this article created and written. All responses will be attended to quickly. Your input is much appreciated! - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to send this to FA eventually, but as always, I need a grammar check (spelling is done) and making sure everything is alright before going to WP:FAC yet again User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This article was just passed as Good Article standard. The reviewer said that it should be sent to FAC immediately. However I want some comments on it first. I think that the history section, lead section and referencing are good, but I'm concerned about the current/recent fixtures list, which I'm unsure about and the notable players section which I don't like. Comments regarding anything would be greatly appreciated, esp if it will help getting it to FA standard. - Shudda talk 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there really no fair use picture of the Haka being performed? The policy is Fair Use should only be used when "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." I'm sure someone could get/create a freely licenced picture of the Haka. Alexj2002 21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is doing well, I think, and I'd like to have some opinion on what could be done to make it a good nominee for featured article status. It's been through quite a bit of fairly well-mannered discussion and is in decent shape right now. If you can give any constructive criticism or help I would appreciate it. Resonanteye 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I ran that, and it seems to be fine according to the machine. I'm more concerned with anything human eyes can find, now. Resonanteye 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about the first caption.
I also agree about the sources..the problem I'm having is that, not being the original author of many sections, I am finding it very difficult to figure out which source is referenced where, exactly. But I have many of the cited books and magazines in my library at home, and I've been trying to sort through them (the two inline sources are in the sections I wrote.)
I'll change the wording in the legalization sentence. it is rather confusing.
The "negative associations" was originally there, but I agree that it is somewhat POV. I will try to get some consensus on the talk page to do a major overhaul there. the caption on the second photograph relates to statements made in that section about "respectable professions", so I think that caption mentioning the wearer's occupation is appropriate.
thank you so much for the help!
Resonanteye 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
How about I be that chick? I don't think my insurance will cover that kind of surgery.
I'm working on the ref tags today.
Resonanteye
22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into this article, with the hope that it might one day reach FA. I would like other eyes to review it for completeness, organization, and style, and would also welcome (more accurately, "jump for joy at") contributions of content. -- Ginkgo 100 talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall this is a very good article, but very scientifically based, which may cause some readers to lose interest, particularly in the section where you are describing them. It is probably ready to be nominated for GA. Which is where I'd go next... then come back to Wikipedia:Academic peer review Balloonman 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope that helps for starters. In its current form, I think the article falls short of the Good Article criteria (especially comprehensiveness), even though I notice that NoahElhardt passed it on 1 December, 2006. It definitely needs a lot of work to meet the featured article criteria. Neil916 ( Talk) 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Going for FAC really soon. I would like some last minute comments to fix any problems that would stop it from getting FA status, thx. M3tal H3ad 03:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty good, but take care to give it a thorough copyedit (I spotted a couple of missing apostrophes on a skim through). There are also occasionally a run of short sentences, which breaks the flow. Also, is there nothing that can be mentioned about their influences, and the influence they had on other bands? The lead seems a bit superlative, as it is not explained later how they led a movement or defined a genre; it needs references. Trebor 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey all :) Myself and a couple of other editors have worked really hard referencing and making this article as rigid as possible to WPF's MOS for clubs. I would greatly appreciate some comments on the prose quality - the article was just promoted to GA status, and I really think it could go all the way. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I somewhat doubt that I can improve the article to Featured status, but I figured I should take it through a round of PR and see what everyone thinks is missing.-- SeizureDog 08:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Reception could do with some expansion. LuciferMorgan 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings all. I totally rewrote this article over the course of about three months and now think its ready for the world! Nominated it for FA but have been told it could benefit from a peer review too. This is my first article on this scale so please be gentle, but any constructive criticism and/or help would be appreciated! Thanks. DocSubster 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You've done an impressive amount of work in a very short time, and have an excellent start.
I haven't had a close look at the prose or read the entire article, as I'd like to see the structural things addressed first. Sandy ( Talk) 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
First up, thanks to Sandy and AndyZ|t for taking such an in-depth look at the work - I really appreciate the time you've taken and am learning as I go. I have made the following changes as per your suggestions:
DocSubster 11:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sandy ( Talk) 16:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Once all of the above is addressed, the article should have a thorough check of Wikilinking. The first link I clicked on was incomplete, and a redirect (From Rajaraja I's invasion of 993 till the reign of Vijayabahu I (1055 - 1100), ... ). The first occurrence should be linked, and unimportant terms shouldn't be linked. There is also a typo in the very first line [Parakramabahu I(Sinhala: Maha Parakramabahu, Parakramabahu the Great; 1123 – 1186)] (no space before the parenthesis), suggesting that a thorough copy edit is still needed. Here is another sentence that indicates the need for a thorough copyedit by a fresh set of eyes: Upon being informed of the child's birth, orders are sent from Vikramabahu in Polonnaruwa that the boy be sent to be brought up as his heir. Sandy ( Talk) 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys for all the work you've done on this. It strikes me that a 'fresh pair of eyes' is needed, which excludes me; is anyone willing to give the article a copyedit? DocSubster 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
From this peer review I am hoping to get this article up to the level of FA. It is already a GA and I want to know what needs to be improved and added/expanded upon to improve it. Andrew D White ( talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Just some trivia:
Very nice indeed! I think this article is on the track to be FA! And I do not see any serious copyright problems with the pictures. Good chance in FAC!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I completed today a complete and thoroughly referenced rewrite of the article. Right now it's a nominee to Good Article status, but I think it has the potential to go up to Featured article status, and would appreciate any comments. Circeus 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a complete peer review, just some remarks:
I would like this article polished up so I can be featured, its a very interesting topic that would generate allot of interest. Below are some points to consider when improving.
Thanks FrummerThanThou 13:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For FA status, this would require a significant additions, I would think. It really needs to be more in depth. The four reasons why Sweden is phasing out oil is listed, but what is the reasoning behind each? What is the relationship between Sweden's economy and oil? What, exactly, is Sweden's potential for its own renewable energy resources, etc?
What is public opinion of this move? What political impact did it have (if any)? Are other nations watching what happens in Sweden? You have an excellent start, however. I look forward to seeing what you can do. Resolute 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe some pictures of meth-smoking? Perhaps some more facts about manufacture and percent usage. Also, a more international perspective in the first 3/4 of the article.
As well as I have tried, I still fill things are holding this article back. It's really a nagging feeling that I have. And it won't go away. - Malomeat 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A low-grade revert war has been going for some time now over the addition of a paragraph on the definition of "responsibility". The addition has been challenged as original research. Only two editors have commented either in the edit summary or on the article's Talk page. Additional participation is needed to break the logjam. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just made this article and I was looking for some critique with it being my first article. Also any new info is welcome.
I would like this to become a featured article, as this region of the United Kingdom is important in the History of the United Kingdom, and it's a fairly interesting area of geography - well, to me anyway - and it would be good to have a Scottish article on the Main Page. Any advice on making this into a featured article is appreciated. -- SunStar Net talk 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the article has reached a certain maturity. I think it is the right time for it to be peer reviewed. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ®
13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Any comment(s) is(are) appreciated as I intend to expand knowledge of Yeoju County's rich historical past into an online form.
Snowfalcon cu 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Art
This article is unique on the web, I believe. All comments are gratefully received. Skoppensboer 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The article looks pretty good to me, but I think it could be a little bit better. I can't quite figure out what could be changed in order to better so I'd like a little help. Any tips you can provide would be greatly apreciated :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrote this page after a long summer in the Whites. I would appreciate any thoughts or additions to add. I'm looking for a summit photo; perhaps from the Crawford Notch side. Edison490 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a good start - as you expand on the article, break it up into sections on history, geography, etc. As it gets larger, you could make the introduction a little more general. As for pictures, I'll try to get up there and snap one. -- Sturgeonman 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've improved the article and hence expect a better rating. S.GaneshKumar 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This article could use a review to confirm that scientific findings regarding Omura's 'BDORT' technique are presented objectively. If so, the NPOV tag can be removed since this was the reason the tag was added. Other editors may have issues to add here which have been the subject of edit disputes. Antonrojo 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to help bring this article to Featured/Good staus, but I don't know exactly what to do, as I'm fairly new to this part of Wikipedia. I'd like comments on how to improve the article, what should be added, deleted, ect. Thank you, in advance, for your comments. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-- the preceeding unsigned request was added by Immanuel goldstein ( talk • contribs).
A list I have been working on for some time, and would like to nominate as a featured list. My primary concern is how best to cite the references. I also would like to make sure the layout is easy to read and navigate. Thanks. Resolute 22:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Mcenroeucsb 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Mcenroeucsb
Hi, welcome to the peer review page of Storm (comics). It is already a GA, and I want to collect some feedback before making this a FAC. In detail, these are the most pressing answers:
Comments and input are appreciated. — Onomatopoeia 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Swap the Larroca and Turner pictures, the latter illustrates her as a weather goddess better. Split the Publication History with a Fictional Biography, ala
Batman, and have the two compliment each other.
Wiki-newbie
18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also advise turning Cockrum's quote into prose.
Wiki-newbie
19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has just failed a GA nom and I want to see what I can do to get it to GA further on FA. Kyriakos 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead reads like a classical tale, meaning there may be a lot of weasel words in the article. Start by removing 'overthrowing the legitimate king', you're not here to decide the proper bloodlines. Wiki-newbie 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
please review entire article. It is probably rather complete, but weighting of different sections may have to be adjusted. Any other comments are welcome. Thank you very much. -- gatoatigrado 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please put more information on the European Delay (reasons for the delay, response from the Gaming community, pricing upon release, etc.) Since at the moment this article could be seen to have a slant that is lacking information on the delays, and the cause and effects of the delay. --- User:Geraint 00:55, 22 Decemeber 2006 (GMT)
Could you put more on the firmware updates and what they might have on them and what sony has to say about it. also what are the euro ps3 hard drives dont have on them that makes them worse on backcompat plez.
Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been advised to specifically ask for original research to be pointed out, construction/copyedit help, and help with finding sources/interviews/studies. Thank you in advance. :) -- Koveras ☭ 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-- SeizureDog 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Impressive amount of work. I'll be honest that I haven't read the article in full, but there are a few things that caught my eye:
Good work and good luck!-- Monocrat 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Failed FAC once (it wasn't anywhere near ready yet), but there are a lot more well-cited references now, albeit no print sources despite my efforts to find some. All in all, it's come a very long way from failed GA status. I think the sections dealing with the most media-friendly period of the band's history (ie. the mid-90's) are, sadly, a little anemic - but the most recent era is well-covered. I've practically exhausted all my efforts just cleaning up what is already there, but I suppose there could be a little more added. Suggestions? BotleySmith 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, most of the concerns below have been addressed. Unless there are any more pressing suggestions, I will continue scouring the article for copy-edits and put it back on the FAC list within the next week or so. BotleySmith 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope some of this helped! Seegoon 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to take another crack at re-writing/re-organization tonight. Thanks again for all the help, folks! BotleySmith 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 18:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and any info there should be found in the body of the article - this is where info should be cited, and not in the lead. LuciferMorgan 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Musical Characteristics section needs more citations - some editors may accuse it of being original research. LuciferMorgan 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Reznor has stated that these songs were outtakes from the With Teeth sessions, and studio recordings may see future release."
Stated? Where? With the word "stated" in the sentence, I'd like to see an inline cite. LuciferMorgan 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"The band's popularity has not waned, however: Reznor's appearance in Time magazine as one of 1997's twenty-five most influential people solidified the band's status at the forefront of mainstream American music."
Solidified? Says who? The cited article doesn't. Original research this seems. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"On the heels of NIN's previous successes, a generous amount of media hype surrounded The Fragile before its release."
From what media? From where? And why was the amount "generous" in comparison to other major new releases? Is this original research? LuciferMorgan 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"They offered the album as part of an overall biddable package that also included the rights to the Television's Greatest Hits compilations and the Mortal Kombat movie soundtracks."
Why's the word "biddable" present? The previous sentence said the album rights were up for auction, so the word "biddable" isn't needed.
LuciferMorgan
03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Ezrin suggested an arrangement of songs that would strengthen their "final continuity and flow," which he is credited for providing in the Fragile liner notes."
Ezrin has been quoted here. All direct quotes need inline citations.
LuciferMorgan
03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"On May 26, 2005, Reznor wrote "apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me" on the NIN website."
The above quote is externally linked, which should be changed to an inline citation.
LuciferMorgan
03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you've mentioned heading to FAC soon, I'll try to be as detailed as possible - these are samples only, not an exhaustive list:
I did a copyedit of this article today, so I think I improved it some. Besides references, what should be improved in this article to bring it to good status? — The Gr e at Llama moo? 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so in a nutshell:
These are the basic guidelines to take it to "decent article", ie GAC. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.-- SidiLemine 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please address length of article (~70kb), academic boosterism or other issues of tone/perspective, topics overlooked. The article has previously been a FAC and is now a "Good Article" but substantial revisions have been made in recent months which have remained stable. Previously on RFF. Madcoverboy 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganised and partly rewritten this article, which is about the captain of the Australian national cricket team, who is also regarded as one of the very best players in the world. I would like to get the article up to Featured Article quality, and whilst I am aware of an uncited statement near the bottom of the article and also aware of the need for a better photo (I can personally solve that problem), it needs a good neutral reader to identify any remaining weaknesses. Thanks. Darcyj 12:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the reference tags are misplaced. It should be after the full stop and no space after it, ex leading to favourable comparisons with Don Bradman.[2] Also the sources are not cited check [27] It will explain how to cite them so that references will display the author, date etc to make it more verifiable. M3tal H3ad 12:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
An exchange of comments here has been relocated to Talk:Ricky Ponting
Please provide advice regarding improvement of this article in terms of POV and bringing it into compliance with WP:BLP. -- Strothra 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have followed the style guidelines for this article, and hope to make Leaving Las Vegas a Good Article. I need to make sure that I am on the right track. Thank you, Crzy cheetah 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Having copied the text to Military of the Soviet Union to concentrate on the land forces of the USSR, I've started improving this article, with refs, changing the structure more toward the U.S. Marine Corps military branch template, and filling out the new sections. There is more on all that to do, but I would appreciate thoughts on anything I've missed. Buckshot06 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's clearly moving forward now. Some suggestions on the content:
Aside from that, some more minor formatting issues:
Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking good, but a few things,
Otherwise it looks good to me, Goodwork M3tal H3ad 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As noted by Kiril, this article is definitely heading in the right direction. My suggestions are:
The article looks very unbalanced and lacks any structure.
-- Planemo 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to give it an individual nomination - suggestions of how to improve this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. -- bainer ( talk) 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A list of people who have died while driving a Formula One car. I'm hoping this peer review will give me some ideas for it to become the fourth Featured List for the Formula One WikiProject.-- S kully Collins Edits 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to make this my first real improvement project, I know it needs some trimming and splitting off, and the links to battles need summarising in the main article, but what can I do to get this to FA? I've got the automated peer review, and need to act on those suggestions too. Thanks, RHB 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps, good luck ! Sandy ( Talk) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the jobs have been completed since the last peer review about 2 months ago. Is this too early to request another review? Simply south 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive of old Peer Review found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Docklands Light Railway/archive1.
After using the automated peerreviewer from AndyZ, I've been working to resolve the issues it has thrown up... now that that is done, could I ask for anyone willing to have a look over and see what could be done to this article to further improve on it? Thanks in advance, Horus Kol 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The article's a bit long, but I feel that the subject matter justifies depth and detailed consideration. Any suggested improvements would be welcome (especially ideas for making the prose more concise). Thanks. -- Emsworth 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Star Trek episode. As far as I can tell, no Star Trek-related article is yet a featured article, and nominations have tended to focus on things that are in-universe minutiae. But this is the second ever episode of Star Trek, and the first with Captain Kirk, and there are a whole bundle of sources about it. Would appreciate comments on the article, with an eye to getting it to WP:FA eventually. Morwen - Talk 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has reached GA status in August this year and it has been very stable since then. I would like to take this now to FA and would appreciate any comments or suggestions. -- RelHistBuff 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to be at the right stage now for the peer review, except for the missing photo of course! While we look for photo permissions, is there any chance it could qualify for FA? if so, how should we improve it to the level? -- Isle Scape 13:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Would like a peer review before consideration as feature article. -- Utahredrock 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. There's also a regular peer review open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Garran/archive1, I hope it's not a problem submitting this in two places, I'm just hoping for plenty of comments. -- bainer ( talk) 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In general, the article is very nice - some thinks I do not like very much are probably just personal preferences (such as the long quotes in "Legacy", which are long and IMO interrrupt the flow of the prose) - and I think I would support it in FAC. But, if you don't feel sure about it, you can go first to GAC - it is another way to get feedback.-- Yannismarou 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this could go to FAC as it is - it's an excellent article. Rebecca 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get it to a GA and would like to know what to expand on. Cbrown1023 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-- Supernumerary 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I passed a GA for this. Mind, remove the out-of-universe sentence at the end of the Plot section. Wiki-newbie 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this article from scratch. Fixed and edited it and have it cited and referenced. Just want to know what else can be done to improve this article?
Thanks Mercenary2k 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
A good start, but still lots of improvement that can be done, I think; some general suggestions:
More generally, any additional detail would be helpful; the article is still fairly brief, as such things go. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Kirill. Probably the single biggest area for improvement is increasing the number of citations, and using more traditional and reputable sources. Websites are fine for general and background information, but the key to taking this article to the next level is going to be incorporating published (print) resources. Great start, and keepin up the good work! Alphageekpa 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
After writing the article from scratch and adding every piece of notable information I can find, I believe it is coming close to standing a chance in FAC. While I don't think it's there quite yet, I can't think of what else to improve before nominating. Any suggestions or comments are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 12:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has already been reviewed once before (see Archive1), but I feel that since that time the article has gone under substantial changes. Currently the article is GA, and I would like to renominate it for FAC, so any advice or comments that you give would be much appreciated. OSX 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already tagged a section that I think needs expansion, but nevertheless I would like to know what else this article needs in order to get to
GA status. Ultimately I would like to get this article to
FA status, but I'll settle for
GA in the meantime and if that's successful then I'll seek advice on
FA. All comments welcome.
Edvid
00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Update I've removed the last expansion tag.
Edvid
23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This article still needs some work and I'd like some other people's perspectives on it. I suppose it still needs more referencing and maybe a shorter lead. Any help would be appreciated. Sportskido8 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to submit this B class article for a peer review in hopes of bringing it up to good article status. Please suggest any needed changes.-- Bookworm857158367 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done! I don't think I have many things to suggest, since the article looks to me quite comprehensive. Just a few remarks:
It was pormoted as a good article just yesterday, but I believe it could be taken further. What do you think it needs to become a featured article? Renata 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
these are minor issues indeed, yet they contribute greatly to the quality of any article. Iulius 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just about done with the article and respectfully request a peer review to help identify any problems or issues with the article that need to be corrected. Cla68 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent article, as usual; just a few minor formatting issues:
Once those are fixed, this should be ready for FAC. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously another FA by Cla68! But I have the impudence to make some minor suggestions! Here they are:
I really liked the narration of the battle!-- Yannismarou 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thorough article. Only a few minor suggestions to improve clarity:
— ERcheck ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 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, have become featured article candidates, 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 (~~~~).
I think this is quite a comprehensive article and deals fully with the subject and related controversy. I know it's not the most exciting of topics but I'd be eternally grateful to anyone who could take a look and give their thoughts/opinions/recommendations/criticisms (anything!). Thanks Globaltraveller 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some points and recommendations I'd like to make:
Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your review. In response to your specific points:
Thanks again Globaltraveller 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Benedetta Tagliabue is mentioned in the article. If there is to be an article of 100% architecture it should be on an Architecture of the Scottish Parliament Building article, as opposed to purely here? Looking at some similar articles on other buildings they devote a large proportion of their space to history and events surrounding these buildings. Even the principal article of the Eiffel Tower (far longer than this one), I can see (even in my limited French) has quite a lot to say on it's history and other things not purely related to design. I will nevertheless try to incorporate some other architectural sources into the text, to give a wider range of references. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the building incorporates all the elements that are part of it - its function, its history and its design (and, yes, it's controversy and problems) You certainly could create another article purely for the Fraser Inquiry. There is so much that could go on that article. I'm not suggesting the article be renamed, but if one wants to concentrate fully on architecture (ie no history, no function, no location, no controvery, no problems etc), then a distinction has to be made. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I initiate this last peer-review, just before submitting the article to WP:FAC. The article has already gone through two peer-reviews ( here and here), and two more independent reviews by User:Yomangani and User:Eusebeus. Please, check Talk: El Greco. The purpose of this peer-review is to collect any further suggestions or to locate any deficiencies I may have missed despite the repetitive reviews and copy-edits. Thanks!-- Yannismarou 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I switched all of your news sources from cite web to cite news, so that all of the information, including publication date, would be listed, alphabetically by last name of author. Because I didn't know how to use a different date format (I hate the cite templates), that meant I had to switch the last access date format on all of your refs. All of your references are now listed alphabetically, taking last name of author on news sources into account.
The division of References into
creates a problem with the citations list. When the reader needs to find full detail on a source given in the citations list, s/he should be able to do that by going down the References list alphabetically. But, because the references are divided three ways, that means the reader has to peruse three different lists in order to locate full information about a given source. I'm not sure how to solve that problem - I'd probably be happier to see one, combined Reference list, to make it easier on the reader. I'm not sure the reader needs to know if a source is online, in print, or whatever. (I haven't had time to read the article, and considering the holiday season, may not find time.) Sandy ( Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Some brief thoughts and comments:
Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Using my finest-toothed comb...
Except for the above points, this would tick all my boxes at FAC. Best of luck to you! talk to the HAM 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
DNA is arguably the most famous molecule and requires a comprehensive article. This page has been extensively re-written and referenced and will be submitted to FA once the peer-review process has brought it to the required level. Both editing and suggestions on content and format are welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is quite some way from being finished. I'd like to get it into shape to submit as an FAC, so any and all comments would be gratefully received. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please write what you think about this article if there is anything that i have missed please tell me. Senators 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was requested to review this article for GA status: I don't participate in GA, but can review it anyway. I fixed some things.
Didn't have time to read the article. Sandy ( Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 470 Nm, use 470 Nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 470 Nm.
[?]OK, I know not many lists go through peer review, but I'd like to get this up to featured list status, and need some feedback to help figure out which direction to go in. If you have time, please take a look. I would especially appreciate feedback on:
Of course, any comments at all are most welcome. -- Visviva 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel like the images clutter the page - actually, as I was initially scanning the list they were about the only things I looked at. I vote keep! I also think you have a good number of citations. Here's a few comments for your perusal:
This is an amazing amount of work already. Good luck on your way to FL!-- Will.i.am 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the lead section? I guess, looking around, these are supposed to be strictly an introduction to the list, rather than the topic. Pity, though; maybe I'll start Zoology in Korea for the latter purpose. -- Visviva 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I spent a while creating this page and posted it earlier this month. In my opinion it's comphrensive on what it intends to list, and could soon be ready for FLC. There are a few concerns:
Other than that, though, what could be done to bring it up to FLC standard? HornetMike 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As of yet I haven't improved the lead, as I'm still working out what to put, and done the proper citation format just because I haven't had time yet. Otherwise, I'm not sure about splitting the list by league. I feel it takes something away from the purpose of it. I don't think it's too hard to edit, as there's only ever going to be 92 entries. I could remove the League column entirely, I suppose, if people think it makes the table too big. Perhaps the club's box could be shaded to indicate their League as an alternative? I dunno. HornetMike 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The last article I brought here got zero reviews, except the automated one :-( What I have done with this article is translated the version from fr:, added a public domain portrait, and trimmed some of the images. Any comments, criticisms or improvements would be appreciated. DVD+ R/W 07:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The most obvious thing is the vast number of red links. You need to consider whether each of them are worthy of their own article (I'm not certain whether notability on French WP should correspond to En). If they are, could you try and start some of them, even if it's just a stub. The end sections need to be changed to correspond with WP:LAYOUT. Some pieces of information aren't in standard places (e.g. the birth/death place in the brackets straight after the title) - compare with a biographical FA to standardise. The French quotes aren't particularly useful if one does not speak French. There don't seem to be many citations - you can cite pages from the books used in the bibliography if you have them. Trebor 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is a great addition to en WP. It needs to be condensed. To accomplish this, sub articles on the saltworks, the theater and the ferme generale might be considered. Why isn't there an article link to utopianism (architecture)? I strongly recommend this. Agree with comments about too many red links, such as street names. These probably should not even be in the article (on the English site) and certainly not as seperate articles. I would especially not carry over any red links that are also red in the French WP. In places, I felt the french terms needed to be defined within the text upon the first occurence, such as Ancien Regime. Glenn4pr 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Very comprehensive article - I've made some minor prose comments below.
I started to edit this and make inline coments, but then stopped as it dawned on me That while is very interesting and comprehensive, it reads like a translation, I think it now need to be completely re-written, incorporating all the facts that are there. No condensing, or too much deleting. I don't like the way work and personal life are mixed in the same sections. It reminds me very much of the early history of Sanssouci which had been admirably and faithfully translated from the German, but had to be ripped apart and put back together again, by someone thinking in English to make it readable and concise to English ears. Sorry to be blunt. I think DVD R W you have now to reduce the facts to basics, then write the page yourself in your own words using those same facts, but also look him up on some internet sites and architectural books and add a bit of your own originality to it. Try to look at it again with fresh eyes, you have probably studied the text as you translated and fallen into French mode. Giano 13:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Could do with some extra eyes to help improve this article. Any feedback from the community would be appreciated. Thanks - Coil00 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Great work. One thing I'm curious about: "the first signs of psychosis". This seems to imply that there was a true psychotic break subsequently. Is that the case? Marskell 08:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are after Portal:British Army, then please go to Wikipedia:Peer review/British Army Portal/archive1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfireboy ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks a pretty decent, well ordered article to me, but what needs to be done for it to reach GA or even FA? Thanks RHB 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel a peer review for this article would be useful. Any suggestions are welcome. Cєlαя∂σяє Talk 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Needs a general review and tips on improvement. Inge 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning on running the article as an FA candidate, thus I'm putting it up for peer review in order to fix any problems it has, and to obtain advice as to how it could be improved. All help will be sincerely appreciated. Regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has been Good Article for a while now and I would like to make the necessary modifications/additions to make it an FA. Also I would like to know if adding more footnotes is a good idea or not. Essentially every line can have a footnote, mostly from Tacitus or Dio Cassius. Any other feedback would be much appreciated.-- Eupator 16:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion at the start of the month when I first started working on it, it survived that nomination and has undergone extensive revisions since then. The article could use some copy-editing (my weak spot) so if you want to help out there, great. But otherwise, I'm looking to see if the content makes sense, is it well organized, does it flow, how can I improve it? Balloonman 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'd value your input on how to bring this article to FA status. It's already had some scientific peer review. Thanks! Willow 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like this to be a featured article, even though the car isn't one people would aspire to own, it's certainly one that is well-known, and should be a featured article. Any advice on making this a featured article would be very helpful. -- ★SUN STAR NET★ 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is the current GA collaboration. Any critique on how the article may be brought to FA status would be appreciated. Tarret 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an A-class article. Do you think you could actually reference the Bible? Wiki-newbie 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
See my review of Computer for my thoughts on Wikipedia articles covering broad concepts.
I'll keep an eye on this peer review and make further suggestions after you have addressed these. -- Ideogram 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Past week's medicine collaboration. Comments/suggestions on getting it up to featured article standards? -- WS 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This is generally pretty good. The lead is a bit long at 5 paragraphs (per WP:LEAD) - perhaps some of the more specific details could be left until later on, and a couple of the paragraphs combined. The first 3 sections are okay, some of the pictures could be on the left to give the article a nicer shape. I would've thought the order of sections should be gone Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment (sort of chronlogical), but if there's a standard for articles of this type then ignore that. Again, I might be wrong, but Pathology sounds like it should be a subsection of Diagnosis. The end of the article needs work, Prognosis and History are very short sections with only short paragraphs within them. (Could the prognosis paragraph come at the end of Treatment section?) The {{fact}} tag obviously needs citing or removing, and the issues raised on the templates need to be dealt with. It seems well-cited throughout. If the end of the article could come up to the standard of the start, I think this could be featured. Trebor 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable 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.
[2]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There no seperate peer review process for portals, so Portal:West Bengal is being nominated for a peer review here. The Portal: West Bengal is a relatively new portal, and is well-maintained. Please provide suggestions/comments for improving this portal and elevating to featured status. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note: For archived old peer review of the article West Bengal, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/West Bengal/archive1
Other things look fine.-- thunderboltz (Deepu) 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to bring this article toward FA status. I think it's within reach of being a GA at least, and I'd like comments about further improving it. I'm aware that it currently lacks inline citations and am already gathering sources so I can proceed to put those in place -- that's the biggest need I see at present. There is also one unsourced statement, which I am looking into. Any comments on content, style, etc. would be appreciated. Shimeru 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Another user suggested this article might have the potential to become a Good Article. I've been doing a fair amount of editing on this page for the past two or three months, and I think it's a relatively decent article, though maybe a little too long and focused on history(?). Anyway, I wondered if anyone might have an opinion on how it could be improved and if it has any potential. Carmelita 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is pretty comprehensive now. I'd appreciate constructive criticism, particularly with regard to passing a GA nom. Of course, if you spot some grammar/spelling issues, then it would be probably just as quick to correct them rather than leaving a message here. Similarly, I don't really find vague statements, like "some sentences are poorly structured", useful. The JPS talk to me 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I created this article, and am currently its sole contributor. While I'm not claiming it to be complete, someone who's outside my brain probably has a better perspective on what would best improve it. In particular, is it accessible/does it provide adequate context? Are the methods descriptions too vague? Is there enough/too much emphasis on structural genomics? Opabinia regalis 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Been working a lot the past month or so to elevate this one (with major citation help from LuciferMorgan). It is a bit long, but the band have a long history, and judging by other comparable music GA and FA pages, it's not that long... One thing I wondered is if it's better to have all cite's the same format - as some are external html links, and some use the footnote style. Thanks for any and all help! Skeletor2112 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I actually think that this article should be a Featured Article Candidate (FAC), but I'm somewhat new to this world, and preferred to ask some help on judging it from older Wikipedians.
The main problem of this article was POV, but I think it's quite solved. Today, he's being vandalised often, so please don't mind if you find something like "I'm the devil and going to kill you" in some part of the article - I'm reverting it as fast as possible. -- FernandoAires 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Great start! Here's some comments which are hopefully not too annoying:
Anyway, this was a fun read, good luck!-- Will.i.am 10:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A guy from 72.26.158.119 questioned me about allegied censorship. Rick Warren's talk page is the best place for we to discuss about this matter. I'm moving the discussion to there. -- FernandoAires 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Has been sitting quietly for about two months. It now finally also got a dearly needed map. Does that mean it were finished? Probably not; I'm sure you can come up with numerous improvement suggestions! Lupo 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
About your statement that It conveys the message that the poster couldn't be bothered to read the article.: first off, its on every peer review (if you scroll down the page), but your statement makes it sounds like I'm singling out your article. Second, the reason why I present them is to be helpful, not rude by presenting suggestions that could be overlooked by peers and as a starting point while waiting for the response of other editors (I have received and read LOTS of complaints about nobody ever reviewing things on WP:PR, so having some semi-automated suggestions is an improvement). Besides, its only a 1-line note, I don't go about emphasizing that you must follow them or anything (they're just suggestions, after all). Sorry about not indicating which specific phrases were being indicated, however I think that most can be found using Cntrl + F and I'm still working on implenting that for other suggestions. And I named it a "peer reviewer" just in order to note specifically its purpose. (Oh and about the " adequately summarize", thanks for pointing that out, I just realized that it would be better on some other template – though in any case it would be hard (esp. with JavaScript!) to determine whether a WP:LEAD would be a good summary for an article – follow the footnote). (PR instructions: please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts , though I invite helpful criticism) After all (especially with my shaky JavaScript skill level), it isn't easy writing a script to accurately parse the text of an article and come up with great suggestions.
And about not bothering to even read the article, well…. I don't spend my entire day sitting in front of my computer reading thru every article there is (as unfortunately many people hope) being posted on WP:PR – when I did try that I got through some 20 articles before realizing it was hopeless. AZ t 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a little bit more information on his early life and career would be desirable, but I have been unable to locate further details. The article is well-referenced and, I think, gives a good, NPOV view of his contributions and notability. I've gotten to the end of what I can do on my own with this article, please let me know what areas for improvement you can identify. Please let me know if you think the article is a candidate for Good Article status. Jacob1207 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Some quick comments:
The article is well-written, overall. I've just skimmed through it, so a more thorough review would be helpful too. JonHarder 04:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
All images needing Fair Use rational were tagged, and redundant text was removed. Requesting new peer review as points from last have been fixed. 123wiki123 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning on running the article as an FA candidate, thus I'm putting it up for peer review in order to fix any problems it has, and to obtain advice as to how it could be improved. As the article has just been written in the past day or two, there might be a few points to make. All help will be sincerely appreciated. Regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, this was a former featured article, mainly removed because I lacked giving it the TLC it needed. I am going to take a stab at this again. I first added the refereces using the <ref></ref> format, which wasn't available at the time I wrote this. Second, the first time around had a picture overload. Now, this only has one photo (which is in the public domain). I took out a lot of the direct quotes, since Babelfish is failing me (and my reading of Russian has gotten a bit better). Is there anything I should expand on before I send this to FAC? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the title was created, it has been bestowed upon ten Belarusian citizens. Out of the ten awards, one was for heroism during military service and two awards were presented posthumously. The first award was given to Uładzimir Karvat (posthumous) in 1996, the second awarding were performed on June 30, 2001 to Pavieł Maryjaŭ, Michaił Karčmit, Vital Kramko and Alaksandar Dubko (posthumous) . [7] The last awardings were to Filaret, Mikhail Savicki, Mikhail Vysotsky, Piotr Prokopovich & Vasily Revyako on March 1, 2006 . [8]
Karvat, a military pilot, was flying his training aircraft Sukhoi Su-27p on May 23 1996. The plane caught fire and was ordered to eject to safety. Unknowing to the ground crew, the plane was going to crash in a area full of civilians. Keeping in mind of the civilians, Karvat steered the plane away until it crashed one kilometer from the area of Hacišča, killing him instantly. President Alexander Lukashenko issued Decree Number 484 on November 21 1996, which posthuously awarded Karvat the title Hero of Belarus. [9] The crash site has been converted to a memorial for Karvat, on which a copy of his decree is placed on the tail fin of the Sukhoi Su-27p. [10] AZ t 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I added another section to the article about it's use on Belarusian stamps. Would this be useful or no? I also saw a television commercial on TB (Television Belarus) on the day of the 2006 elections. I wish I knew what it said word for word, but it mentioned about the great deeds of the heroes and showed a graphic of the medal. I do not have a screen shot of that and if I did, it is not my intent to upload it. I know there was a stamp shown in one of the souces I provided, but it was on WP before and I was asked to take it down by others admins. Other than the grammar, is this article set for FAC? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Any help and advice on re-stucturing the article and tieing it into the areas of Luton (eg Bury Park, Leagrave, Etc) would be helpful. Other ideas for what else is needed to bring the article upto a 'good status'. GazMan7 11:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Seeking to get to GA status. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated, thank you. -- MECU≈ talk 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking for any suggestions on improvements that could be made to the article including technical terms that aren't explained well enough for a non-F1 audience, content improvements, style/tone improvements and any other problems. Looking to improve to at least GA-standard. Alexj2002 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I'm not sure what you mean by materials? Does the article text not describe the pre-race situation enough or is it a lack of images? The latter is not actionable for a GA/FA (although if improvements can be made it's still good to know about them). Alexj2002 17:22, 21 November 2006 (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)
I know this still needs more work. The areas where I know additional work is needed are:
I would appreciate comments about any other areas where improvement is needed, as well as suggestions for the areas I already know about. Also, I learned some information on my recent tour that is not currently in the article. How do I cite a tourguide? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Valley of the Kings/archive2
Hi, I have done quite a lot of work on this article recently, and need some more feedback. Cheers Markh 10:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I am hoping for peer review against the featured article criteria and general review of the whole article by any editor. I've been working on the article for a while with a few other editors, but I'm hoping to get more opinions about the article. I am thinking to self-nominate it for FA status depending on how the review goes. It's my first PR and FAC, and my goal is to respond positively... please be gentle! -- cmh T C 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember trans fat being voluntarily disclosed on many labels prior to 2006. Am I wrong? Glenn4pr 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking to see what else this article might need in order to become a good article. Is there enough information to describe the event? Is it understandable? Are the grammar and spelling in good shape? Is there another source of information I might have missed?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatdr ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
Per Andy Z and Hurricanehink, three of suggestions were filled, including adding information directly from NCDC, adding the nbsp's into the text, which led to breaking in impact into a state by state format which lengthened the article. I can see an infobox being useful. Since this system was not a tropical cyclone, I'm not sure what should be included or not included in such a box. Suggestions? Thegreatdr 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate your thoughts on the above article I created some time ago on an alternative and emerging form of waste treatment. -- Alex 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My take:
Sorry if I've given this article a hard time. Well, at least you won't face these problems when you are going through FAC, which is signifigantly far away for this article.
Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on the Baseball Mogul article a lot, but it's mostly been a solo effort, so I was looking for another perspective to help me out and make this a better article. So far, I've deemed it a "B" quality because I feel it has all the features of a B article, but I would love some advice on how to improve this article, especially from the perspective of a non-gamer who does not know Baseball Mogul. Electricbassguy 07:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Given that there are very few psychology GAs/ FAs, and also given that i've been coddling this article for over a year now, i think it's ready for prime time. Don't want NPA personality theory giving psych articles a bad name, ya know? i want this one to be good. Tear it apart, please. JoeSmack Talk( p-review!) 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
It's always nice to see serious work on a social sciences related article. Check history for bot suggestions removed by Psychonaut; my suggestions are: 1) more refs; there are still paras without a citation 2) 'Other notes on the stage model' is a strange title, please rename 3) Explain (in lead) why the sections of 'Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)' and 'Examples of Applied Moral Dilemmas' (decapitalize, plz) are relevant here 4) 'Notes' should be renamed 'Further reading'. 5) pictures would be nice - perhaps a graph like that on sociocultural evolution would be in order? Keep up the good job!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You're far down the Peer Review page now, so I hope you're still watching. :) Comments:
Kohlberg's stages of moral development are planes of moral adequacy conceived by Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. Created while studying psychology at the University of Chicago, it was inspired when he became fascinated with children's reactions to moral dilemmas through the work of Jean Piaget. He wrote his doctoral dissertation there in 1958, outlining what are now known as his stages of moral development.
Regards, – Outriggr § 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
General checkup, plus, can anyone locate the missing citations in the "Formation" section? Serendipodous 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on this one so far, this could be a gigantic article and I don't envy the discussions you must have had on what to include. I have a few suggestions:
You may want to find someone to thoroughly copy-edit the article. Perhaps not before going for a Good designation, but definitely before heading to FAC (if that's your intention). More stuff (no comma comments, I promise):
Unfortunately I'm out of time, but this hopefully gives you some ideas. Hopefully this isn't too overwhelming, and perhaps I'll find time to do some copy-editing myself sometime. Good luck!-- Will.i.am 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've done some work on this article, and I find myself in need of some other eyes. First of all, I have had some experience with videogame articles, and a little with NES game articles. Second, I know this article is short, and a far cry from good article, but I am in a dillema. There is very little information about a game made 20 years ago, and if it exists it is hard to locate(found some). I am out of ideas of what else to look for or what else could go into this article, as well how to improve this article further. I'd like to say it is a weak to middle B-class article, but I figure that would be objected because of it's size(it wasn't). Any help to make this GA (or better in general) would be appreciated.--
Clyde Miller
23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wondering how I'd go about improving this article. Any feed back would be welcomed. RockerballAustralia 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: it's a stubby, poorly referenced, and grammatical error-filled article.
This list has been completely rewritten in the past fortnight, and I would appeciate feedback to get it to FL status. Thanks. -- Majorly ( Talk) 12:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a nicely established list. Atfer those are taken care of, as some of them affect the lead, I think you try to rewrite the lead so that it covers the entirity of the list better. Before going for featured you really need to focus on getting everything referenced.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I am the main contributor to this article and would appreciate any comments, feedback, or suggestions on how to improve it. I will make brief articles to take care of the red links and need to update the watershed map, but thought I could start the peer review process and work on those minor issues at the same time. I am also aware that the semi-automated peer review javascript finds a problem with the units and a non-breaking space, and even know that the problem is just in the "Course" section of the article, but have been unable to find or fix the problem. I plan to submit this to
WP:FAC when the peer review is done. Thanks in advance for your help,
Ruhrfisch
15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The lines on the map can be confusing. It looks like the county lines are blue like the creeks. This makes it confusing to look at. I know that the county lines are grey. Perhaps this color could be changed. Orange county line perhaps? Dincher 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The topographic/3D map is another plus. add more info on Alvira and the Ordance depot and I think the article is ready for FA. Dincher 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make this a featured list. Any advice on how this article could be made better will be appreciated, but specifically the lead paragraph needs to be expanded/improved. Thanks! PullToOp ə n talk 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please suggest any ways in which this page can be improved to the highest standard. John Talbut 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to work this up to WP:FA standards; if anyone here is able to help, please leave a message on my talk page! If you've got any advice, then please let me know here! -- SunStar Net 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope some of this has helped! Seegoon 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well the nominator didn't say a thing, but I must say, the articles need references. Good neutrality though. Wiki-newbie 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to have alot of POV for a featured article. The article seems to have a bias against Marshall's theory. Comments on how to improve it would be great! Justinmeister 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall review of this artical , how it currently is and what improvements are needed ( Gnevin 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC))
I believe that this article should be nominated for a "featured article" status. Tājik 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please review this article for balance, grammar, format etc. Per Taxman's advice, I have tried to bring a balance to the article by adding information on Religion, Society, Agriculture, Administration etc. If there is anything else that needs to be done, I would glad to comply. Please provide feedback on this discussion page. Dineshkannambadi 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply-->Ok. Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate feedback on what specific aspects of this article need to be improved. In terms of length, is it still too long and if so in what sections. Do you believe that more sources are needed and in what sections? Do you have any other suggetions/comments regarding the article? TSO1D 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on "International rankings" should probably be removed. It would need to be converted into prose, but is then likely to be too detailed for the main national article. There may be place for the information at economy of Germany. -- Stemonitis 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is already listed as good. I believe it deserves being worked on in order to achieve quality suitable for the FA status. I would thus be very grateful to you if you could review the article and suggest improvements. The article has a lot of potential, let's make the most of it! Gimlei 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, here goes. This is my suggestion for how to structure the article. I haven't looked at any of the daughter articles, so this is just from first principles. Feel free to ignore if you have better ideas.
In my opinion the "Miscellanous" section should be deleted with prejudice. If the material in it belongs elsewhere in the article, it should go there; if not, it's not notable enough to belong in the article. I hope that all of this makes sense. Let me know if you have questions/quibbles/vehement objections. Once you've finished restructuring the article, I suggest that you bring it back for another peer review, because it will need to have content looked at before it becomes a FAC.
I should also mention the citation issue. At the moment you have only four footnotes, plus quite a few external citations. All of those should be converted into footnotes, and a minimal standard for citations is probably one per paragraph. Some paragraphs will require quite a few more. MLilburne 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Vanished user talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be hycritical of me to ask for help, but not offer any in return so here are some thoughts on this article...
My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV. Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source. In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference. I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this page is ready for FA status. It's a Good Article, and done a lot of work on it, especially the plot section to shorten it up and remove some redundancies. Hopefully there won't be any major problems, and this can be nominated for Featured Article in a short short. ColdFusion650 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it so funny that for a copyrighted film there are so many free images! I'd find some film shots for the Plot though, like Bond vs Treyalan and Bond actually jumping off the dam. WikiNew 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am trying to get this article become a Good Article. Are you any things that you suggest me do to achieve this goal? -- Ineffable3000 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
(October 2005 Jesus peer review located here: archive 1) (April 2006 Jesus peer review located here: archive 2)
We seem to have reached a relative low point in things to be edited. We've recently instituted a newly re-done section on the teachings section, the only citation needed tag seems to concern the Star of Bethleham and something about Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction I think, and really, it seems most everything else is referenced. So therefore, I think its high time for yet another peer review, Does anyone think this might nearly be an FA? What about A class? The only disputes really left now are some UFO theory on the talk page right now, and occasionally people edit the wording in the excruciatingly discussed introduction and make people unhappy, but other than that, most of the new content proposels constitute adding in good amounts of material which may or may not really be necessary. But hey, if anyone has suggestions about more material, it can't hurt. Homestarmy 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a references section which could all do with in line use. I also think a point the article needs to make is what Jesus was preaching: love most of all. Wiki-newbie 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have pretty much re-written this article since the last peer review and believe I have addressed the vast majority of the points raised. Looking for GA as soon as possible, along with any advice and help to get it up to FA. Thanks. -- Jameboy 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
So, strange situation because I've already said I'd review this for GA but in parallel we have a PR, so I'll leave my comments here and see what happens, bearing in mind I'll review with minimum GA and beyond in mind (thinking of FA in other words...)
Done I've elaborated on this a little. If you can give an idea of what sort of thing you're looking for here, I can probably provide it.
That's it for now. Let me know if I can help more. The Rambling Man ( talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The history of this song, from its time-lost roots through its recording by Led Zeppelin as Gallows Pole, is a truly fascinating trip. I'd like to know, what do folks think would be needed to bring this one up to FA quality? bd2412 T 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope that helps, – Outriggr § 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this article is quite long and it is starting to ramble, anyone just any views and suggestions for improvements? Markh 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that i is transliterated j. I've never seen this before in my (admittadly short) career in hieroglyphics, outside of spanish transliterations. Which transliteration system does that come from? Thanatosimii 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm running out of ideas and research material for this article. I plan on adding some more video game photos and information when I get back from Thanksgiving holiday. I won't be able to answer any comments until Friday or Saturday.
One problem I have is that I’ve referenced AT LEAST 45 different book, magazine and internet sources (and growing) to write the page. So my reference section is HUGE. It is taking up a large amount of space and I may have to split other sections of the page up into their own articles, like the “Famous lei tai fighters of the past” section. I would like to know if there is a way that I can archive my sources, but still have them accessible when someone clicks the citation link on the main article. ( Ghostexorcist 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC))
I have made some changes per manual of style and your own requests. I'm still not done yet. I will expand the opening paragraph when I have the time. Thanks for the comments! ( Ghostexorcist 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
I have been working on this article for some time and would like to see it reach FA status, any comments to help it reach that goal are welcomed. Except changing the picture of the Rhodes Building and providing a photo of the three medieval pieces of plate, I have run out of inspiration as to how to improve it. Thanks. -- Alf melmac 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on the article, take them for what they are worth:
This is a very good article. Balloonman 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while, mostly adding info as it has been discovered. I know that the prose needs some improvement, but I'd like to hear any comments you may have so that I can improve the article and maybe get it to good article status.
I'd welcome anything you have to say. Readro 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted! Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to promote this article to good articles and later to featured articles. So you are welcome to review the language and content of the article. Geo-Loge 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
My 2 cents:
Correction time:
The drive is on to (hopefully) achieve FA-status by the end of the year, so I want to put the article through a peer review first. Some of the suggestions given in the GA-review haven't been implemented, but they have been noted. If you can elaborate on them, please do.
Peter Isotalo 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What steps need to be taken to make this article a GA? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks pretty good, although a few of the sentences seem a little long. Here's a few comments:
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable 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.
[2]*Please alphabetize the
interlanguage links.
[4]
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[11]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 18:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Read very good comment related to the Mac OS X fac nomination. This article obviously requires a peer review. Emx 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We almost completely rewrote this article with a view to getting it to featured status. Any and all input that can help us towards that goal is appreciated. We've approached this article trying to provide a good overview of computer fundamentals and a starting point for the many many computer-related articles on Wikipedia. I realize that laundry lists are frowned upon in featured articles, but considering that this is a hub-type article, I think the link tables are an appropriate and sane way to organize links to sub topics. They certainly are not there to compensate for a lack of article content, since I believe we've done a good job of writing an overview of the core concepts. Thanks in advance for your help. --
mattb @ 2006-11-12T01:04Z
Let me note at the start that articles on general concepts are the most difficult to write on Wikipedia, as they require broad knowledge and the ability to sift out important information from unnecessary detail. Writing an article about a narrowly defined subject (e.g., a famous celebrity) is easier because what can be said is naturally limited.
You have tackled an extraordinarily difficult task and I hope you are not discouraged by my criticism. I think Wikipedia desperately needs to improve its coverage of general concepts and your efforts are appreciated.
For a topic of this size I encourage you to take a top-down approach. Rather than simply reorganize the information other people have presented, create an outline of major topics that need to be discussed. Create sections for each major topic, label them as stubs, and wait for others to fill them in. I used this technique with good results in Operating system.
Hope that helps, and again, I appreciate your efforts. -- Ideogram 12:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-11-19T18:45Z
You asked for help; I gave you my opinion; I'm not interested in having an argument. -- Ideogram 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-11-19T19:39Z
I would loose the tables at the bottom and just do "see also: Category:computers". I think that the table of computer charicteristics should be shuffled off to the side somehow rather than breaking the text. The history of computing should be shortened. The example section should be removed. Overall I think the article needs to be really tightened up. More references = good. - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this article ever since the day after the incident, and it's achieved good article status. I'm getting ready to submit it to WP:FAC, but I'd like some comments regarding the general aspects of the article first. Seeing if it complies with WP:WIAFA would be great. Thanks. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like comments on what needs to be done to get this article in shape for nomination as a featured list. In particular, please comment on completeness, quality of references, and the clarity and soundness of inclusion criteria. Nick Graves 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this (my first article) ready for FAC. Any comments at all would be much appreciated. One problem you may encounter while reviewing, is the checking of sources, many of which are nearly 100 years old, many of which are out of print. (I don't know what one does in this case in terms of WP:V). Therefore, I'd be much obliged if you tell me what needs to be substantiated, because it's unlikely you'll find any sources on this esoteric subject matter. – Nathaniel | T 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was interested in getting comments on what would be needed to get the Dean Smith article up to featured status. I know I need to delete the trivia section and remove the other lists. So any other help would be appreciated. Remember 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am mainly needing help with citations. Online sources for this are few and far between. I used a research paper I recently completed and tried to cite excerpts from The Arkansas Daily Gazette I retrieved from microfilm, however I'm sure I did this improperly. Also, I took the liberty of uploading the pictures of Brooks and Baxter assuming that they were both in the public domain. That needs to be double checked. Finally the article needs a good once over to get rid any POV, weasel words, etcetera. -- The_stuart 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Very nice start, and lots of thoughtful work has gone into the article. Some quick things just to get you started:
Sandy ( Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking now at some random prose - I picked the Baxter responds section:
This passage is problematic on several levels. the oust official --> the ousted official? Unknown reason said twice - redundant. Some commas seem to be missing. Second sentence is entirely redundant; deleting it results in a one-sentence paragraph, which should be expanded or merged into next paragraph.
In the next sentence, we find another redundancy:
The next sentence is problematic:
Curiously is editorializing, which shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Commas seem missing. There is a lot of redundancy.
This is just a random sample. At the bottom of the page, WP:WIAFA, you'll find a link to Tony's exercises for eliminating redundancy. A thorough copyedit is in order. Good luck ! Sandy ( Talk) 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking to see what else this article might need in order to become a good article. Is there enough information to describe the event? Is it understandable? Are the grammar and spelling in good shape? Is there another source of information I might have missed??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatdr ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
This is the first article by User:Kenmore. The guy has been working on it for several months and I think would really appreciate feedback, especially mild advices as to possible ways to wikify and improve the article before it may be considered for featured status. -- Ghirla -трёп- 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My take:
Overall this is a very good article and I found it to be an interesting read. You might want to have the Military Peer Review group take a look at it. But here are my comments:
I appreciate any and all criticisms...don't worry about bruising my ego. Be as harsh as you see fit in pointing out the article's weakspots.
The peer review started without my knowledge. I was planning to rectify the following weaknesses in upcoming weeks:
1. I still need to footnote sections #1 ("Background") and #2 ("Rout of Ozharovsky"). This is especially important because some major historians confuse the Ozharovsky skirmish with the Guard's feint two days later. I want to explain the distinction in a footnote.
2. I have a few more details to add to section #3 ("Defeat of Eugene") regarding specifics of the combat on that day.
3. I need to better research the data in section #6 ("Summary of Results"). There's some controversy as to how many cannon the French lost at Krasnoi -- some say 133, others say close to 200. Also, it's not clear how many of the cannon were lost at Krasnoi itself, as opposed to being guns lost on the 40 mile road between Krasnoi and Smolensk due to Cossack raids.
4. The same holds true for the 39,000 French casualties at Krasnoi: there's controversy as to how many of them fell at Krasnoi itself as opposed to being captured on the march from Smolensk to Krasnoi.
5. I still need to better specify corps and division numbers of Russian and French units involved, and to standardize the manner in which those numbers are used in the article.
6. I still need to do a final grammar and diction dust-up. No doubt sentence mechanics and paragraph construction in many instances need to be improved...from the perspective of being well or badly written, it has weaknesses and I intend to work them through.
Kenmore 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore
Very small comment: is Krasnoi and Krasny the same thing? If they are, it would be nice to provide any alternative transliterations in the lead, but spell it the same way throughout the article. (I believe that when I looked at it it was spelled differently in the figure captions and in the text).--
Will.i.am
11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Two previous peer reviews have suggested changes for this article. A recent rewrite has tried to implement those suggestions, but it has been controversial. Does the rewrite improve the article? If so, how can the article be improved further? -- Alecmconroy 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a few comments and questions.
Some of these are quite open-ended and research may not be available; please do not feel obliged to answer all of them! Fg2 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
MUCH improved since the last peer review. A lot of new information has been added, and all of the issues discussed in the previous peer review have been dealt with. What's the concensus, guys? ( Ibaranoff24 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
Possible areas of peer review:
( Wikimachine 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As always, any pointers or help or suggestions. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never done this before so I'm a bit uncertain regarding procedure. However, I would like to have some feedback on this article - what needs to be done and are there any horrible, glaring errors in this article? Ultimately I'd like to see this thing receive GA status so specifically - what needs to be done to get it there? Gardar Rurak 07:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!
A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.
She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )
Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.
Thank you very much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48 foot.
[2]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)
The article starts well and is well-cited
Good work on the article - it's looking much better. It should easily make Good Article and (I think) would have a shot at featured. Minor things that could be changed:
Nicely done! These are my remarks:
Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.
In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...
Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".
Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.
While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.
In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.
She has also avoided interracial intercourse.
Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)
Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm bringing this article here, to see what other editor's think the article needs work on. I hope to bring it up to FA status, and would like to have any input from my fellow editors. Thanks KOS | talk 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This article recently failed a FAC. I have taken care of the things people objected to in that nomination and would like to know what needs to be done in order for it to become a FA. -- Maitch 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to be hard on this one because you want it to be an FA and said that it failed already. So here are some comments:
My biggest criticism of the article is that it is all over the place. Tighten this article up... Balloonman 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get user comments before nominating this article for FAC. It has a great intro paragraph but maybe it should be split up into sections in the main part of the article? Any other comments are appreciated. Blackjack48 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Since I started editing this article, it has been strides in quality. and depth. I recently finished the characters section and I'm wondering where I should proceed next. -- Twlighter 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in any comments anyone has to make. I'm planning on taking a photo for it, and I'd like to expand it, but somehow not simply pack it with trivia (schedules etc.) so I'd love some suggestions there. Thanks! Dina 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few comments that I had:
Good luck with the article!-- Will.i.am 00:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Article may have POV issues and lacks inline citations. It's marked as A class, however. Suggestions for improving subjective language and rewording would be very helpful. The article seems to rely very heavily on sensationalism and is not an encyclopedic presentation of facts - rather it is an historical interpretation. Not a very good one at that since it uses too few sources to be a decent historical interpretation. Any suggestions on how to make it encyclopedic would be helpful. -- Strothra 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for constructive criticism in order to prepare for a possible FA status. I know there is a lot to be done, but I want to get a base line of what needs to be done. Farquaadhnchmn( Dungeon) 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that I already know about the articles reliance on HHNVault for references. I'm trying to remedy that, but the sites that could be referenced to are either blatant advertising or they don't come up to snub for WP:Verifiability. Suggestions on that topic will be helpful.-- Farquaadhnchmn( Dungeon) 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I, have contributed my best i can do to improve this article. Ofcourse my native is Yanaon. Please review this article and give me suggestions about rectifying, editing inorder to make it a neutral article with good information. Bsskchaitanya 05:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It needs a lot more images, citations (I can't see any), and the small sections which are currently stubs need to be expanded. It may also be worth breaking up the large chunk of text on colonial history. -- The Spith 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I, have contributed my best i can do to improve this article. My native is Yanaon and I belong to Pondicherry UT. Please review this article and give me suggestions about rectifying, editing inorder to make it a neutral article with good information. Bsskchaitanya 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have created this article. Many contents were based upon the article about Moniseur Dadala, just to give enough introduction. But, the sub-sections Murder of Monsieur Samatam and Contoversial aspects and Unsolved questions were written by me only.
i met many of older people (Eg: Wife of Monsieur Kanakala, Ex-MLA during french reign, Monsieur Kamichetty Krouschnaya, a French nationality holder currently living in Yanam, etc) to get to know how was yanam merged in India. I got to know many things that went undercover in due course of time. This article is a small attempt to give real fact about the Coup. Please read the french article by Monsieur Dr. Nallam Venkataramayya. His native is also Yanam but he settled at Pondicherry. Read another article by Madame Madanakalyani in the website caludearpi. Please review my article for modifying, editing inorder to make a good neutral pointed one.
Bsskchaitanya 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone extensive rewriting since the last request for peer review and has since gained 'good article' status. We would now appreciate any advice on what needs to be done to get the article featured. I will try to respond to any and all comments here within a day. Thankyou-- The Spith 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I changed the unsourced fact to one I found a source for. As for the intro, I'm not sure what is best to be done about that. I see no point in repeating information, especially as the content that is there at the moment does not realy fit anywhere else. The only alternative I can think of is making a 'basics of rowing' section at the start of the article, but then you would end up with two redundant introductions.-- The Spith 07:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
M3tal H3ad 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there any pages on wikipedia policy discussing whether the encyclopedia should use British or American English? I'm guessing we are supposed to use the original author's choice, but this article was originally removed from another one, and there are American, Canadian and British contributors.-- The Spith 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Some comments:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. I'll get to work on these-- The Spith 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A first few notes :
-- Ozhiker ( talk) 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was the Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month for Nov 2006. The article has went through quite a few revisions since. From a scientific point of view, it does cover the important parts. The field is too broad for the article to be exhaustive. How about from a non-technical point of view? Tone? Style? Examples? Pictures? Please comment! -- Rifleman 82 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on improving this article since it was a three-line stub, making great strides toward GA status (I hope). No edit has had any controversy or trouble. Please review the article and copyright status of the included resources and make some suggestions for me. Thanks much! Dan, the CowMan 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I plan on coming back to review the entire article for content, but I have to go right now. – Heav e n's Wrath Talk 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I (personally) have trouble with point #1 because my education was split between England and the US. It's all just English to me, I don't even see errors of the sort... lucky me.
Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Compacted some paragraphs today. Dan, the CowMan 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I just made this list of all of the known cetacean species. Would anyone be able to give any feedback on anything I could do to it. In particular any extra fields in the table that could be added. Thanks, C hris_huh talk 11:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall I think the list has a good amount of information and besides fixing the above points it only needs have the referencing completeled. You might consider listing mass along with the picture at size as there appears to be room. Another suggestion is to arrange the species within a family by population numbers so that the reader finds the most common first.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Link the lower level list in a hat note like you link main articles not in "See also". Then kill the "See also" Completely as the :other article is linked in the introduction.
This is coming along nicely! If you don't understand the heading level thing let me know and I can fix it for you. -- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments on any part of the article to try and improve the overall quality. Be as critical as you'd like. :) Carnyfoke 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like some notes as to why the character became popular due to feminism, as described in the lead. Wiki-newbie 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the trivia section needs swift addressing. Integrate noteworthy info into appropriate sections of the article, and then rid of the other info, which'll thus eradicate the dreaded trivia section. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this article to become Featured Article, so any suggestions on improvements (such as unverified claims or grammatical errors) would be greatly appreciated.-- CyberGhostface 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This person is very influencial and looking for comments on how to make this better and what will be required to get it up to featured article status. -- Simonkoldyk 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I put this article up for peer review at the end of November (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Maserati MC12/archive1). If you suggested before please don't feel obliged to again, though all comments are very welcome. I know the first reference (Motor Trend Magazine Review) is heavily used, but if you see their article it is very comprehensive, much more so than any other source. I'm looking to get this up to FA so the things I want to know specifically are:
Please be very harsh so it improves greatly. Thanks in advance. James086 Talk | Contribs 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking for ideas for any kind of improvements to the layout and information of this article. If you know about Mayan languages what does this page need to explain better? What information lacks? If you don't know about Mayan languages what do you still want to know after having read the page? How about citations? Are sources for different information good enough? How is the style? basically all criticism is welcome and will be taken seriously in trying to improve the article. Maunus 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A very good start if anything. I made some tweaks to layout and structure, but there are some issues that could use attention:
Peter Isotalo 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello peers :) This list was nominated as a Featured List and got slammed pretty hard (comments available here). Those of us who know and love this list would appreciate some feedback on what we can do to make this better, more useful, better organized, etc. Thanks!-- Bookgrrl 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Author | Image | Born | Died | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
↓ Michael Chabon | File:Michaelchabon.jpg | May 24, 1963 | - | ||
↓ L. Frank Baum |
![]() |
May 15, 1856 | May 6, 1919 |
I don't understand the point of this list. At what point is someone going to need to look up a list of fictional books? -- SeizureDog 10:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
( Wikimachine 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
Thanks. ( Wikimachine 21:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC))
Done a lot of work on this and wondered if we can aspire to get it to FA status, and if so, what would need to be done? -- Guinnog 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know if ever this article still needs edits, corrections or even a revision. Thanks in advance --- Kevin Ray 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for the some time now, and trying to get it to FA level. I believe most of the suggestions from the first peer review have been addressed and I would like to know if anything more can be added to the article. Other suggestions (like on language and structure) are also welcome. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
*My take:
Follow-up:
Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
*My take
The prose is excellent & and have adequate citations. But I have some thing to point out.
1) There should be a separate subheading ‘Notes’ and put the inline citations there. Inside the reference there should be the most used books and website names.
2) The infobox is not proper. How can a borded area checkpoint have an Indian Urban Infobox?? I am suggesting a new infobox (if it doesn’t exists) with the following parameters:
Infobox name should be border checkpoint
Name
Map
Countries
States
Districts
nearest_city
lat_degrees
lat_minutes
lat_seconds
lat_direction
long_degrees
long_minutes
long_seconds
long_direction
Area
Altitude
Annual Trade (in US $)
Number of people crossed
Main Transacted Items
Regulating Authorities
3)Map – Some thing like a South Asia Map with a close up of the area than the india map.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag ( talk • contribs)
I'll be giving a heavy copyedit to the article to bring it in line with FA standards. The infobox needs to be changed as well as it does not reflect the true ststus of Nathula. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone an extensive group collaboration effort and has received significant changes. Unfortunately it failed the GA attempt, but the mentioned issues appear to have been addressed. (Note that the philosophical aspects of this topic are covered on the Nature (philosophy) page.) I'd like to take it back for another GA attempt, so your comments on this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! — RJH ( talk) 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide additional guidance on what else needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing? -- Guest818 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the WP:PR process yesterday by typographical error of another editor who was trying to send me to WP:PRO. I am in the neighborhood of 5000 edits and am preparing to apply for adminship this month. I think this process may be a good learning process to round out my experiences here at wikipedia. I have only produced unpolished articles which you can see on my user page and think it may be worth an attempt to produce a high quality article. Unfortunately, I am more of an analytical type and not a very good writer. Thus, I am not sure what type of feedback to ask for. I guess anything that will help me improve the article would be fine. I would appreciate any help in finding additional images for the gallery as well. TonyTheTiger 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url=~~~|author=~~~}}</ref>
(see {{
cite web}}).He had a very positive view of ordinary culture and felt the Abstract Impressionists had taken great pains to ignore the splendor of modernity. The Campbell's Soup Can series along with his other series provided him a chance to express his positive view of modern culture. However his deadpan work, endeavored to be devoid of emotional and social commentary.
His work differed from series work by other artists such as Monet, who used series to represent discriminating perception. They showed that the painter could recreate shifts in time, light, season, and weather with hand and eye. Warhol represented the modern era of commercialization and indiscriminate sameness. When Warhol eventually showed variation it was not realistic. It was in a sense his variation in colors shown later was almost a mockery of discriminating perception.
Please see other related WP:FAs for ideas to start with. AZ t 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is a self-nomination on my favorite book. I provided the summary and the recent theme section, and I would like to know if there is any other information that should be added to a book article like this one. I tried to keep the summary manageable and relatively concise, while not leaving out significant plot details (although I did leave out some side events). The analysis/theme section is new and a bit short, and I'm wondering if and how I should elaborate on it. My main question is: Is this article too short, and if so, what information do I need to add to make it a featured article candidate? Breed Zona 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article largely using V for Vendetta (film) as a guide, however I am now somewhat stumped as to how to improve it further. I have used every article I could find on the film, and the DVD featurette. I want to take it to FA, but it seems, kinda empty somehow. What else can I do to take it to FA, besides a spellcheck? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One of your references is not displaying. Wiki-newbie 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Now Ref 7 isn't showing. Eh? Also, were there any more positive reviews? Themes of the film? Try prosifying the Awards section too. Wiki-newbie 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious how this article strikes "laypeople" in general, and specifically I'm curious about:
a) how the telling of the "traditional account" works for people -- should it be more succinct? Contain fewer quotes? More quotes?
b) how comprehensible is the section on documentation for a person unfamiliar with the historical controversies?
c) an anonymous critic wrote on the talk page that it "gives the appearance of telling both sides of the story without really delivering on either." Does it feel vapid? Unfair and unbalanced? There's a fair amount of controversy in this material.
d) would more description of popular devotion -- the stuff that living people do today in veneration of Guadalupe -- be relevant? interesting?
Any feedback is appreciated: the Virgin's feast day is coming up in about two weeks and I'd like to get the entry in top shape... Thanks Katsam 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the article in question, and this is not a "feedback," only a comment on the unpleasant aspects of the Virgin's feast, based on my personal experiences in a Mexican village. Part of the ritual is to wake up the population at dawn with screaming rockets, launched at ten- or fifteen-minute intervals into the black sky. People can say goodbye to restful nights for a week or two (I'd say, ten days is a sure bet). With all respect, it's amazing how deep-seated religious beliefs can turn the normally calm inhabitants of a village into a bunch of nervous wrecks, for lack of sleep. I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of being honored by practices that might endanger the mental equilibrium of the faithful.(User: Marta Palos 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)December 3, 06)
Ha ha! Too bad you're not a quotable source, I've been looking for some examples of actual devotion. Screaming rockets, izzit? Katsam 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Never heard them? If you crave insomnia, go down to the nearest Mexican village at this time of the year. (User: Marta Palos)
Yes, Katsam, I'm very new. Thanks for the advice--I'll check out the discussion page. By the way, I had no intention to step on anyone's religious toes; I merely wanted to point out the sometimes not too rosy aspects of religious rituals. Amigos? (User: Marta Palos 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)) 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)) Dec. 6. 06, 2:44 (MST)
Actually it wasn't the screaming rockets I was worried about, but my remark about the somewhat crazy rituals in general I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of. (Maybe she'd even have a good laugh, watching them.) Although I still stick to my view, I'm getting into deep waters here, so I'd better quit the subject. Que te vaya bién! (By the way, I'm of Hungarian origin.) ( Marta Palos 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC))
A few presentational points to start with:
Hope this is helpful. I'll try to come back later and address your substantive questions. MLilburne 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
(I love gigantic pictures, but you're right that they're stylistically unencyclopedic -- and I put in a little explanation of the Nican mopohua.)
Thanks for the citation comment, I knew it in my heart but hadn't yet accepted it...I guess I'm off to change all those citations into footnotes (aargh). Thanks again, Katsam 14:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been busy adding a few "citation needed" tags to the article. You shouldn't view these as criticisms of your work, they're just a useful way of indicating where people might expect to see citations. It would probably make GA status without them, but certainly not FA status. Now, on with the substantive comments...
Hope these are helpful comments. I'm going to have to take a break now, but will come back to the rest of it. I'm being hard on the article, but this is because I feel that it has a lot of promise. With more citations, a bit of prose improvement and some expansion, it could definitely be worth submitting as a FAC. MLilburne 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Those are great criticisms, really useful. I made a Codex Escalada entry, which I'll summarize in the bigger article. And I'm going to edit the "traditional account" and "symbol of Mexico" parts as per your suggestions.
I believe the "explicit" Zumarraga comment is referring to the fact that Z. mentioned a Guadalupe, but didn't mention the apparition story. Stafford Poole -- and I believe DA Brading as well -- think that the mentions of Guadalupe could refer to Guadalupe of Extremadura or some copy of her image. It's hard to know how much detail to include.
The other thing that I'm unsure about is what to do with uncited sections made by I-have-no-idea-who-a-million-years-ago. I hate to see those "citation needed" tags, and would prefer to take stuff out and put it on the discussion page rather than have the page riddled with questionmarks -- on the other hand I don't want to be rude to the previous editors.
Once again, thanks very much for your criticism -- it's really helpful! I'm a college student and I wish I got such lucid comments from my professors... Katsam 07:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It turns out I dreamed up Zumarraga's mentions of Guadalupe. What I was misremembering was: there was definitely a shrine to a Virgin of Guadalupe at Tepeyac hill, even way back -- it was mentioned by eight bazillion different historians, priests and letter-writers. However, there's quite a bit of textual evidence to indicate that the Guadalupe at Tepeyac could have originally been something else -- like maybe a copy of the Guadalupe of Extremadura. So: mentions of "Guadalupe," completely backed by the evidence -- 16th-century mentions of the apparition? Not so much. (Maybe I should mention this in the article.)
Is there a "dealing with controversy" wikiprinciple? I've been editing with the idea that the miraculous investigations -- like finding figures in eyeballs -- are interesting (and thus notable) and that I should keep an even, neutral tone vis-a-vis the historicity of the apparition account. But I think the bulk of the evidence is on the antiapparitionist side. It's a little hard to parse -- L'Osservatore Romano seems to make a good case for the documents but then my best history book, by Stafford Poole, seems to utterly demolish any apparitionist case. I should go read some "religious figure" pages -- maybe I should go find Shroud of Turin!
You've been so encouraging I've been thinking about trying for FAC -- I really like the idea of the article being on the front page for Guadalupe's feast day (December 12). But I don't think it would be considered "stable" when I've rewritten half of it in the last couple days, and it doesn't seem long enough either, and there's still so much more that could be fixed/added --. Maybe I won't...
Thanks for your help, your criticism has been very motivating. Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
One more round of comments:
Thanks, I'm trying to fix that stuff now -- cool program -- Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I printed out this article to copyedit today. I only got through the first two sections so far, but tell me what you think of these suggestions:
Introduction
You think the first sentence should read "Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Virgin of Guadalupe (Spanish: Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe) or Guadalupe is a Marian apparition and a 16th century Roman Catholic icon." ?
I like the Paz quote and think it expresses well the importance that Guadalupe has in Mexico to both religious and non-religious people (they say in Mexico "hasta los ateos son Guadalupanos" or "even the atheists venerate Guadalupe"). But I'll put it up for discussion on the discussion page. There's another, perhaps less sardonic quote attributed to Carlos Fuentes where he says "It doesn't matter whether or not you're Christian, if you don't venerate the Virgin of Guadalupe you're not a Mexican." If the other editors on the discussion page agree maybe we could substitute in that quote...
That particular image IS the Virgin of Guadalupe (as allegedly discovered on the tilma of Juan Diego in 1531)...that's the 16th century Roman Catholic icon described in the lead paragraph. Would it make it clearer if the lead paragraph said something like "Roman Catholic icon (pictured on the right)"?
These are minor concerns; I actually don't know if they would be correct changes or not.
History
Quarma 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your time Quarma! I can't do any substantitive editing at this moment but later this weekend I hope to tuck into the article and will take your suggestions into account. Take care --
Katsam
01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is very comprehensive. It definitely needs some work before it passes WP:FAC. Is anything missing? Is there any trivial details that need to go? I've also asked the Trains WikiProject to peer review the article. That page can be found Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Rapid transit. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments. -- Selmo ( talk) 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of these regional railways were first built to operate in one direction from a city centre terminus, but some have been extended across the city centre, sometimes running in tunnels. By making multiple stops in the city, they can offer suburban passengers a choice of stations and also provide useful transportation within the city. A notable example is the Paris RER system, where (in co-operation with the city's transit authority) several pairs of existing suburban lines running in opposite directions from the city have been extended in tunnel to join up and form new through routes across the city. They are provided with frequent service and, within the city, the same fares as the Métro are charged, providing an integrated network. In Tokyo and Osaka, Japan private companies operate the world's most extensive suburban railways, each with their own fare system that integrates with the entire system. In German-speaking countries, the Paris style system is called an S-Bahn Italian-speaking countries such a system is called Linea S or Treno Suburbano, where as in Spain it is referred to as Cercanías. AZ t 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say the article does not need a greater number of images, but it does need a greater diversity of images, such as a picture of the inside of a rail car (with people in it), a monorail/elevated train, etc. Right now the pictures seem too similar. A panning image of a train would also be a good image towards the top. Maybe later tonight I will look for featured images of rapid transit. Cacophony 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I found the Extent section very confusing. Also all references to specific railways was a bit distracting. I think mentioning the most notable rapid transit systems with a minor description in its own section, then keeping the rest of the article very general would be the best way to deal with this. Also shouldn't the LA system be mentioned somewhere. I would like to work on this article. Ratherhaveaheart 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the sections need to be rewritten. The content is good, but it isn't in the right order.
I've moved around some stuff and rewritten other stuff in the article. Personally I feel it's got better structure now, but I've modified to much to be much objective in the matter any more. The history section is still a mess, and should become a seperate article. Futhermore, subway station architecture is a really interesting and important matter that could cover many paragraphs, and should too. Some research has to be done on the matter though. Otherwise I feel that something has to be done with the introduction. As it stands now it's IMO cluttery and concerned with trivia instead of main topics. My main concern is that the sentence about tunneling techniques is far to technical for an overview, and that there is not enough about the role of the rapid transit in the city. Otherwise there have to be more citations. Still, it's beginning to look good :) Arsenikk 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Much recent work has been done on this. What needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the unabated hunting of the species by humans for house pets or for trade has contributed to its decline. Hunting tarsiers to sell as pets was until recently, a thriving industry. Because of its adorable and benign appearance, many have been lured to keep the Philippine Tarsier as pets. This demand fuels the capture and illegal trade of the animal further diminishing its remaining number.[17] Moreover, the life span is 24 years when living in the wild , but only 12 when in cages and taken cared of by people. It is also known to die from psychological damage when around humans because its instinct is to be out in the wild. Moreover, its reduced lifespan in captivity is due to the fact that it is easily distressed by being displayed and physically handled during the day contrary to its natural biological rhythm.[17] AZ t 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That's all I can say for now...otherwise, I find this an informative (although it's a little heavy on the "Conservation" section :) --- Tito Pao 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have done extensive work on this article and am trying to get it to Good Article status. Comments on all aspects would be appericated. -- Ted87 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like any comments or suggestions on how to fix this page. I believe it needs some form of an overhaul--some sections might be able to be their own articles. More or less, if you have had any experience on working on articles by bands please give me some input. The main thing this article needs is probably the organization of their works. That and more references. b_cubed 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well first, let me just say TMBG is my favoritest band of all time, and I would love to see them get FA. But now onto the comments:
Rosetta's goal is to develop computational methods that accurately predict and design protein structure and protein complexes. This computational endeavor may ultimately help researchers develop cures for human diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Malaria and many other diseases.
Baker Laboratory is based at the University of Washington. The principal investigator is David Baker, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Washington and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, who has been elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in April 2006. The BakerLab scientific team includes post-docs John Karanicolas, Phil Bradley, Kira Misura, Bill Schief, Vanita Sood, Bin Qian, Eric Althoff, Daniela Roethlisberger, Jim Havranek, as well as numerous graduate students and visiting scientists.
Needs to get to FA status.-- Records 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
NB: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs)
21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[11]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
NB: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the last FA nomination in May 2007, the article has improved and matured quite a bit -- the writing in the lead is better, there are more references than ever (over 150), and the History section has been mostly rewritten and cut down to a reasonable length given the band's active 30-year history. The "Campaigning and Activism" section may still need some improvement, but other than that it's well-written and comprehensive. Here's to hoping it's ready for a successful FA nomination after this peer review! Wikipedia brown ( talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
During a recent FA nomination it was suggested that a peer review was required to check spelling and grammar errors and also to improve some of the prose. Hera1187 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
After completing her GCSE's in Surrey, Melua attended the BRIT School for the Performing Arts in the London Borough of Croydon, undertaking a BTEC with an A-level in music at which point, she began song writing.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3243501.stm New Music: Katie Melua] [[BBC News]] [[10 November]] [[2003]]</ref> It was whilst at the school that Melua was spotted by producer Mike Batt.
As a result of being spotted at a young age, Melua didn't attend
University though she has often stated her desire to do so, citing
English literature,
history and
physics as her courses of choice
should she ever get the chance to go.
<ref>[http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/melua%20takes%20time%20out%20to%20study_1013428 MELUA TAKES TIME OUT TO STUDY]contactmusic.com</ref><ref>[http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/jacek_d/sundayexp2.jpg The Sunday Express]</ref>
Initially it was difficult for Melua and Batt to get air play for the albums lead single, " The Closest Thing to Crazy", but this changed when BBC Radio 2 producer Paul Walters heard the single and put it to be played on the popular Terry Wogan breakfast show.<ref>[http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1841267,00.html Talk the talk] ''[[The Guardian]]''</ref> Wogan played " The Closest Thing to Crazy" frequently in Novmber and December 2003 in an attempt to make it that year's Christmas number one. The attempt was not successful and the single only reached #10 , however Wogans support did raise Melua's profile and when the album was released it became an immediate hit reaching number-one on the UK album chart in January 2004 and the top twenty of the Australian album charts in June 2004. " Call off the Search" reached the top five in Ireland, top twenty in Norway, top thirty in a composite European chart and top fifty in Australia. In the UK, the album sold 1.2 million copies making it four times platinum, and spent six weeks at the top of the charts. It sold 3 million copies worldwide. Subsequent singles did not reach the success of the first. The second single and title track went Top 20, and the third single, " Crawling Up A Hill", only got to #41.<ref>[http://www.purevolume.com/katiemelua Melua Profile] purevolume</ref>
Even having been through the WP:FA process three times, I'd very much like some extra eyes on this article before deciding whether to test its FA-worthiness. Thanks in advance to all who offer their thoughts. :) RadioKirk ( u| t| c) 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get this article up to FA status, but I'll need to find the time to really edit it heavily. Until then I'd like to hear others opinions on what could be done for the article. -- YankeeDoodle14 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer all cite tags. Wiki-newbie 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done some extensive cleanup, and I think this might be close to a FA candidate. One sore spot I can see is under the legacy section, as some might see it as too listy. I couldn't think of a cleaner way to arrange that information, so if anyone else has suggestions I'm all ears. Other than that I'm looking for general feedback as to the worthiness of this article. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on content, but also grammar and writing style, in order to qualify the article for Good Article status. Any suggestions are appreciated. Deet 19:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, check out the Bandarban District article and make suggestions. It would be even more helpful if someone lent a hand at making it better. - Aditya Kabir 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey people, how do I get others to review this article? No takers? PLEASE!!! - Aditya Kabir 11:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This article (which deals with a town in England), has been developing for some time now, and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community.
I (as a significant contributor) would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate step for assistance with this. Therefore, constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now in December 2006, I am re-entering the article for a peer review (automated and manual) in an effort to further the article.
I believe the previous suggestions have been met and thus hope to receive new recommendations for moving this article towards WP:GA. I believe the format of the article is fine, it is any objectionable statements or other such entries which could be brought inline with the more obscure policies of Wikipedia as soon as possible, which I am looking for. Thanks, Jhamez84 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I started working on this article just 2 days ago. I've expanded the article and it now covers all aspects of the experiment. I have more material in the form of a UN report and a study conducted by the Planning Commission. So I can add more information if required. Till now I haven't had time to look at the prose. Any comment is welcome. I intend to make this an FA. - Aksi_great ( talk) 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You can discuss why the project was stopped, and what sort of programming was available. Some specific examples would help. Needs a copyedit too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This article had a lot of work done to get it to GA quality but has since grown stall in progress. I'd like to get some fresh eyes to take a look at it and pin point some areas that need to be worked on to get it up to FA consideration. Probably my biggest area of concern is the quality of the prose. I appreciate your time. Agne 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate it. Agne 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide additional guidance on what else needs to be cleaned up? What's broken, incorrect, needs fixing, etc?-- Guest818 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The first of two articles that I am working to get to Good Article status or better, I am primarally looking for comments on the prose of the team history sections, as that tends to be my weakest spot when editing articles. All suggestions are, of course, welcome. Thanks! Resolute 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Requesting a peer review of this page in preparation for FA review. Jazznutuva 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
— Wackymacs 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe this article is in very good condition, but should get some review before heading over to WP:FAC. User:Gopher backer has been the main force in getting this article created and written. All responses will be attended to quickly. Your input is much appreciated! - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to send this to FA eventually, but as always, I need a grammar check (spelling is done) and making sure everything is alright before going to WP:FAC yet again User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This article was just passed as Good Article standard. The reviewer said that it should be sent to FAC immediately. However I want some comments on it first. I think that the history section, lead section and referencing are good, but I'm concerned about the current/recent fixtures list, which I'm unsure about and the notable players section which I don't like. Comments regarding anything would be greatly appreciated, esp if it will help getting it to FA standard. - Shudda talk 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there really no fair use picture of the Haka being performed? The policy is Fair Use should only be used when "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." I'm sure someone could get/create a freely licenced picture of the Haka. Alexj2002 21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is doing well, I think, and I'd like to have some opinion on what could be done to make it a good nominee for featured article status. It's been through quite a bit of fairly well-mannered discussion and is in decent shape right now. If you can give any constructive criticism or help I would appreciate it. Resonanteye 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I ran that, and it seems to be fine according to the machine. I'm more concerned with anything human eyes can find, now. Resonanteye 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about the first caption.
I also agree about the sources..the problem I'm having is that, not being the original author of many sections, I am finding it very difficult to figure out which source is referenced where, exactly. But I have many of the cited books and magazines in my library at home, and I've been trying to sort through them (the two inline sources are in the sections I wrote.)
I'll change the wording in the legalization sentence. it is rather confusing.
The "negative associations" was originally there, but I agree that it is somewhat POV. I will try to get some consensus on the talk page to do a major overhaul there. the caption on the second photograph relates to statements made in that section about "respectable professions", so I think that caption mentioning the wearer's occupation is appropriate.
thank you so much for the help!
Resonanteye 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
How about I be that chick? I don't think my insurance will cover that kind of surgery.
I'm working on the ref tags today.
Resonanteye
22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into this article, with the hope that it might one day reach FA. I would like other eyes to review it for completeness, organization, and style, and would also welcome (more accurately, "jump for joy at") contributions of content. -- Ginkgo 100 talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall this is a very good article, but very scientifically based, which may cause some readers to lose interest, particularly in the section where you are describing them. It is probably ready to be nominated for GA. Which is where I'd go next... then come back to Wikipedia:Academic peer review Balloonman 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope that helps for starters. In its current form, I think the article falls short of the Good Article criteria (especially comprehensiveness), even though I notice that NoahElhardt passed it on 1 December, 2006. It definitely needs a lot of work to meet the featured article criteria. Neil916 ( Talk) 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Going for FAC really soon. I would like some last minute comments to fix any problems that would stop it from getting FA status, thx. M3tal H3ad 03:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty good, but take care to give it a thorough copyedit (I spotted a couple of missing apostrophes on a skim through). There are also occasionally a run of short sentences, which breaks the flow. Also, is there nothing that can be mentioned about their influences, and the influence they had on other bands? The lead seems a bit superlative, as it is not explained later how they led a movement or defined a genre; it needs references. Trebor 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey all :) Myself and a couple of other editors have worked really hard referencing and making this article as rigid as possible to WPF's MOS for clubs. I would greatly appreciate some comments on the prose quality - the article was just promoted to GA status, and I really think it could go all the way. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I somewhat doubt that I can improve the article to Featured status, but I figured I should take it through a round of PR and see what everyone thinks is missing.-- SeizureDog 08:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Reception could do with some expansion. LuciferMorgan 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings all. I totally rewrote this article over the course of about three months and now think its ready for the world! Nominated it for FA but have been told it could benefit from a peer review too. This is my first article on this scale so please be gentle, but any constructive criticism and/or help would be appreciated! Thanks. DocSubster 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You've done an impressive amount of work in a very short time, and have an excellent start.
I haven't had a close look at the prose or read the entire article, as I'd like to see the structural things addressed first. Sandy ( Talk) 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
First up, thanks to Sandy and AndyZ|t for taking such an in-depth look at the work - I really appreciate the time you've taken and am learning as I go. I have made the following changes as per your suggestions:
DocSubster 11:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sandy ( Talk) 16:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Once all of the above is addressed, the article should have a thorough check of Wikilinking. The first link I clicked on was incomplete, and a redirect (From Rajaraja I's invasion of 993 till the reign of Vijayabahu I (1055 - 1100), ... ). The first occurrence should be linked, and unimportant terms shouldn't be linked. There is also a typo in the very first line [Parakramabahu I(Sinhala: Maha Parakramabahu, Parakramabahu the Great; 1123 – 1186)] (no space before the parenthesis), suggesting that a thorough copy edit is still needed. Here is another sentence that indicates the need for a thorough copyedit by a fresh set of eyes: Upon being informed of the child's birth, orders are sent from Vikramabahu in Polonnaruwa that the boy be sent to be brought up as his heir. Sandy ( Talk) 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys for all the work you've done on this. It strikes me that a 'fresh pair of eyes' is needed, which excludes me; is anyone willing to give the article a copyedit? DocSubster 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
From this peer review I am hoping to get this article up to the level of FA. It is already a GA and I want to know what needs to be improved and added/expanded upon to improve it. Andrew D White ( talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Just some trivia:
Very nice indeed! I think this article is on the track to be FA! And I do not see any serious copyright problems with the pictures. Good chance in FAC!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I completed today a complete and thoroughly referenced rewrite of the article. Right now it's a nominee to Good Article status, but I think it has the potential to go up to Featured article status, and would appreciate any comments. Circeus 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a complete peer review, just some remarks:
I would like this article polished up so I can be featured, its a very interesting topic that would generate allot of interest. Below are some points to consider when improving.
Thanks FrummerThanThou 13:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For FA status, this would require a significant additions, I would think. It really needs to be more in depth. The four reasons why Sweden is phasing out oil is listed, but what is the reasoning behind each? What is the relationship between Sweden's economy and oil? What, exactly, is Sweden's potential for its own renewable energy resources, etc?
What is public opinion of this move? What political impact did it have (if any)? Are other nations watching what happens in Sweden? You have an excellent start, however. I look forward to seeing what you can do. Resolute 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe some pictures of meth-smoking? Perhaps some more facts about manufacture and percent usage. Also, a more international perspective in the first 3/4 of the article.
As well as I have tried, I still fill things are holding this article back. It's really a nagging feeling that I have. And it won't go away. - Malomeat 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A low-grade revert war has been going for some time now over the addition of a paragraph on the definition of "responsibility". The addition has been challenged as original research. Only two editors have commented either in the edit summary or on the article's Talk page. Additional participation is needed to break the logjam. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just made this article and I was looking for some critique with it being my first article. Also any new info is welcome.
I would like this to become a featured article, as this region of the United Kingdom is important in the History of the United Kingdom, and it's a fairly interesting area of geography - well, to me anyway - and it would be good to have a Scottish article on the Main Page. Any advice on making this into a featured article is appreciated. -- SunStar Net talk 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the article has reached a certain maturity. I think it is the right time for it to be peer reviewed. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ®
13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Any comment(s) is(are) appreciated as I intend to expand knowledge of Yeoju County's rich historical past into an online form.
Snowfalcon cu 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Art
This article is unique on the web, I believe. All comments are gratefully received. Skoppensboer 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The article looks pretty good to me, but I think it could be a little bit better. I can't quite figure out what could be changed in order to better so I'd like a little help. Any tips you can provide would be greatly apreciated :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrote this page after a long summer in the Whites. I would appreciate any thoughts or additions to add. I'm looking for a summit photo; perhaps from the Crawford Notch side. Edison490 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a good start - as you expand on the article, break it up into sections on history, geography, etc. As it gets larger, you could make the introduction a little more general. As for pictures, I'll try to get up there and snap one. -- Sturgeonman 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've improved the article and hence expect a better rating. S.GaneshKumar 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This article could use a review to confirm that scientific findings regarding Omura's 'BDORT' technique are presented objectively. If so, the NPOV tag can be removed since this was the reason the tag was added. Other editors may have issues to add here which have been the subject of edit disputes. Antonrojo 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to help bring this article to Featured/Good staus, but I don't know exactly what to do, as I'm fairly new to this part of Wikipedia. I'd like comments on how to improve the article, what should be added, deleted, ect. Thank you, in advance, for your comments. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-- the preceeding unsigned request was added by Immanuel goldstein ( talk • contribs).
A list I have been working on for some time, and would like to nominate as a featured list. My primary concern is how best to cite the references. I also would like to make sure the layout is easy to read and navigate. Thanks. Resolute 22:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Mcenroeucsb 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Mcenroeucsb
Hi, welcome to the peer review page of Storm (comics). It is already a GA, and I want to collect some feedback before making this a FAC. In detail, these are the most pressing answers:
Comments and input are appreciated. — Onomatopoeia 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Swap the Larroca and Turner pictures, the latter illustrates her as a weather goddess better. Split the Publication History with a Fictional Biography, ala
Batman, and have the two compliment each other.
Wiki-newbie
18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also advise turning Cockrum's quote into prose.
Wiki-newbie
19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has just failed a GA nom and I want to see what I can do to get it to GA further on FA. Kyriakos 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead reads like a classical tale, meaning there may be a lot of weasel words in the article. Start by removing 'overthrowing the legitimate king', you're not here to decide the proper bloodlines. Wiki-newbie 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
please review entire article. It is probably rather complete, but weighting of different sections may have to be adjusted. Any other comments are welcome. Thank you very much. -- gatoatigrado 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please put more information on the European Delay (reasons for the delay, response from the Gaming community, pricing upon release, etc.) Since at the moment this article could be seen to have a slant that is lacking information on the delays, and the cause and effects of the delay. --- User:Geraint 00:55, 22 Decemeber 2006 (GMT)
Could you put more on the firmware updates and what they might have on them and what sony has to say about it. also what are the euro ps3 hard drives dont have on them that makes them worse on backcompat plez.
Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been advised to specifically ask for original research to be pointed out, construction/copyedit help, and help with finding sources/interviews/studies. Thank you in advance. :) -- Koveras ☭ 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-- SeizureDog 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Impressive amount of work. I'll be honest that I haven't read the article in full, but there are a few things that caught my eye:
Good work and good luck!-- Monocrat 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Failed FAC once (it wasn't anywhere near ready yet), but there are a lot more well-cited references now, albeit no print sources despite my efforts to find some. All in all, it's come a very long way from failed GA status. I think the sections dealing with the most media-friendly period of the band's history (ie. the mid-90's) are, sadly, a little anemic - but the most recent era is well-covered. I've practically exhausted all my efforts just cleaning up what is already there, but I suppose there could be a little more added. Suggestions? BotleySmith 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, most of the concerns below have been addressed. Unless there are any more pressing suggestions, I will continue scouring the article for copy-edits and put it back on the FAC list within the next week or so. BotleySmith 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope some of this helped! Seegoon 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to take another crack at re-writing/re-organization tonight. Thanks again for all the help, folks! BotleySmith 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope some of this helps. Seegoon 18:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and any info there should be found in the body of the article - this is where info should be cited, and not in the lead. LuciferMorgan 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Musical Characteristics section needs more citations - some editors may accuse it of being original research. LuciferMorgan 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Reznor has stated that these songs were outtakes from the With Teeth sessions, and studio recordings may see future release."
Stated? Where? With the word "stated" in the sentence, I'd like to see an inline cite. LuciferMorgan 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"The band's popularity has not waned, however: Reznor's appearance in Time magazine as one of 1997's twenty-five most influential people solidified the band's status at the forefront of mainstream American music."
Solidified? Says who? The cited article doesn't. Original research this seems. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"On the heels of NIN's previous successes, a generous amount of media hype surrounded The Fragile before its release."
From what media? From where? And why was the amount "generous" in comparison to other major new releases? Is this original research? LuciferMorgan 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"They offered the album as part of an overall biddable package that also included the rights to the Television's Greatest Hits compilations and the Mortal Kombat movie soundtracks."
Why's the word "biddable" present? The previous sentence said the album rights were up for auction, so the word "biddable" isn't needed.
LuciferMorgan
03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Ezrin suggested an arrangement of songs that would strengthen their "final continuity and flow," which he is credited for providing in the Fragile liner notes."
Ezrin has been quoted here. All direct quotes need inline citations.
LuciferMorgan
03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"On May 26, 2005, Reznor wrote "apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me" on the NIN website."
The above quote is externally linked, which should be changed to an inline citation.
LuciferMorgan
03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you've mentioned heading to FAC soon, I'll try to be as detailed as possible - these are samples only, not an exhaustive list:
I did a copyedit of this article today, so I think I improved it some. Besides references, what should be improved in this article to bring it to good status? — The Gr e at Llama moo? 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so in a nutshell:
These are the basic guidelines to take it to "decent article", ie GAC. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.-- SidiLemine 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please address length of article (~70kb), academic boosterism or other issues of tone/perspective, topics overlooked. The article has previously been a FAC and is now a "Good Article" but substantial revisions have been made in recent months which have remained stable. Previously on RFF. Madcoverboy 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganised and partly rewritten this article, which is about the captain of the Australian national cricket team, who is also regarded as one of the very best players in the world. I would like to get the article up to Featured Article quality, and whilst I am aware of an uncited statement near the bottom of the article and also aware of the need for a better photo (I can personally solve that problem), it needs a good neutral reader to identify any remaining weaknesses. Thanks. Darcyj 12:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the reference tags are misplaced. It should be after the full stop and no space after it, ex leading to favourable comparisons with Don Bradman.[2] Also the sources are not cited check [27] It will explain how to cite them so that references will display the author, date etc to make it more verifiable. M3tal H3ad 12:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
An exchange of comments here has been relocated to Talk:Ricky Ponting
Please provide advice regarding improvement of this article in terms of POV and bringing it into compliance with WP:BLP. -- Strothra 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have followed the style guidelines for this article, and hope to make Leaving Las Vegas a Good Article. I need to make sure that I am on the right track. Thank you, Crzy cheetah 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Having copied the text to Military of the Soviet Union to concentrate on the land forces of the USSR, I've started improving this article, with refs, changing the structure more toward the U.S. Marine Corps military branch template, and filling out the new sections. There is more on all that to do, but I would appreciate thoughts on anything I've missed. Buckshot06 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's clearly moving forward now. Some suggestions on the content:
Aside from that, some more minor formatting issues:
Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking good, but a few things,
Otherwise it looks good to me, Goodwork M3tal H3ad 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As noted by Kiril, this article is definitely heading in the right direction. My suggestions are:
The article looks very unbalanced and lacks any structure.
-- Planemo 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to give it an individual nomination - suggestions of how to improve this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. -- bainer ( talk) 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A list of people who have died while driving a Formula One car. I'm hoping this peer review will give me some ideas for it to become the fourth Featured List for the Formula One WikiProject.-- S kully Collins Edits 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to make this my first real improvement project, I know it needs some trimming and splitting off, and the links to battles need summarising in the main article, but what can I do to get this to FA? I've got the automated peer review, and need to act on those suggestions too. Thanks, RHB 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps, good luck ! Sandy ( Talk) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the jobs have been completed since the last peer review about 2 months ago. Is this too early to request another review? Simply south 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive of old Peer Review found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Docklands Light Railway/archive1.
After using the automated peerreviewer from AndyZ, I've been working to resolve the issues it has thrown up... now that that is done, could I ask for anyone willing to have a look over and see what could be done to this article to further improve on it? Thanks in advance, Horus Kol 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The article's a bit long, but I feel that the subject matter justifies depth and detailed consideration. Any suggested improvements would be welcome (especially ideas for making the prose more concise). Thanks. -- Emsworth 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Star Trek episode. As far as I can tell, no Star Trek-related article is yet a featured article, and nominations have tended to focus on things that are in-universe minutiae. But this is the second ever episode of Star Trek, and the first with Captain Kirk, and there are a whole bundle of sources about it. Would appreciate comments on the article, with an eye to getting it to WP:FA eventually. Morwen - Talk 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has reached GA status in August this year and it has been very stable since then. I would like to take this now to FA and would appreciate any comments or suggestions. -- RelHistBuff 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to be at the right stage now for the peer review, except for the missing photo of course! While we look for photo permissions, is there any chance it could qualify for FA? if so, how should we improve it to the level? -- Isle Scape 13:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Would like a peer review before consideration as feature article. -- Utahredrock 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. There's also a regular peer review open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Garran/archive1, I hope it's not a problem submitting this in two places, I'm just hoping for plenty of comments. -- bainer ( talk) 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In general, the article is very nice - some thinks I do not like very much are probably just personal preferences (such as the long quotes in "Legacy", which are long and IMO interrrupt the flow of the prose) - and I think I would support it in FAC. But, if you don't feel sure about it, you can go first to GAC - it is another way to get feedback.-- Yannismarou 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this could go to FAC as it is - it's an excellent article. Rebecca 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get it to a GA and would like to know what to expand on. Cbrown1023 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-- Supernumerary 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I passed a GA for this. Mind, remove the out-of-universe sentence at the end of the Plot section. Wiki-newbie 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this article from scratch. Fixed and edited it and have it cited and referenced. Just want to know what else can be done to improve this article?
Thanks Mercenary2k 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
A good start, but still lots of improvement that can be done, I think; some general suggestions:
More generally, any additional detail would be helpful; the article is still fairly brief, as such things go. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Kirill. Probably the single biggest area for improvement is increasing the number of citations, and using more traditional and reputable sources. Websites are fine for general and background information, but the key to taking this article to the next level is going to be incorporating published (print) resources. Great start, and keepin up the good work! Alphageekpa 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
After writing the article from scratch and adding every piece of notable information I can find, I believe it is coming close to standing a chance in FAC. While I don't think it's there quite yet, I can't think of what else to improve before nominating. Any suggestions or comments are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 12:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has already been reviewed once before (see Archive1), but I feel that since that time the article has gone under substantial changes. Currently the article is GA, and I would like to renominate it for FAC, so any advice or comments that you give would be much appreciated. OSX 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already tagged a section that I think needs expansion, but nevertheless I would like to know what else this article needs in order to get to
GA status. Ultimately I would like to get this article to
FA status, but I'll settle for
GA in the meantime and if that's successful then I'll seek advice on
FA. All comments welcome.
Edvid
00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Update I've removed the last expansion tag.
Edvid
23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This article still needs some work and I'd like some other people's perspectives on it. I suppose it still needs more referencing and maybe a shorter lead. Any help would be appreciated. Sportskido8 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to submit this B class article for a peer review in hopes of bringing it up to good article status. Please suggest any needed changes.-- Bookworm857158367 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done! I don't think I have many things to suggest, since the article looks to me quite comprehensive. Just a few remarks:
It was pormoted as a good article just yesterday, but I believe it could be taken further. What do you think it needs to become a featured article? Renata 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
these are minor issues indeed, yet they contribute greatly to the quality of any article. Iulius 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just about done with the article and respectfully request a peer review to help identify any problems or issues with the article that need to be corrected. Cla68 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent article, as usual; just a few minor formatting issues:
Once those are fixed, this should be ready for FAC. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously another FA by Cla68! But I have the impudence to make some minor suggestions! Here they are:
I really liked the narration of the battle!-- Yannismarou 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thorough article. Only a few minor suggestions to improve clarity:
— ERcheck ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)