This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
Many people have worked hard on getting the facts of this article correct. It has also recently been improved a lot by the medicine collaboration of the week. It would be nice to get some feedback especially from people with a non-medical background. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. -- Bob 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks pretty good. Nice job! Here's a few comments:
Thanks. :) — RJH 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
and sex
We've recently expanded this article greatly. The writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, so we're putting it up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. Any activity is appreciated, whether it's on content or on technical details. — jdorje ( talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Haven't read thoroughly, but the Impact section overwhelms the Table of content. there is also a one-sentence section in there, which you'llwant to rework: one paragraph sections alone aretypically frowned upon. Also, youmight want to remove the frames in Image:Floydfranklin.jpg and Image:Floyd Tar River Flooding.jpg, but that is a purely personal gripe I have with these types of pictures. Circeus 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Also, for images that needs longer explanation or color charts, you might want to look into the great pseudo frames at Saffron. Circeus 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this page for the last few days (week?) now in order to get it ready for featured article status, I am requesting a peer review in the hopes that the comments will allow me to fix what problems I do not see at this moment before I submit it for featured article candidacy. The Filmaker 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully I've cleared it up as best I can. The Filmaker 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this one for a while, and it draws on all the major sources, ancient and modern, that deal with the subject. Thrasybulus is almost completely forgotten today, which is unfortunate, since he strikes me as a really interesting figure. I'd like to get this to FA, and I'm interested to hear what people think it needs. -- Robth Talk 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the WikiProphet, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. However, I have tried and rewritten the article from scratch, so any errors in it are mine and mine alone. It covers a decisive battle fought by Muhammad in 624. I would love feedback on it, so I can eventually nominate it for a Featured Article. (Currently there are none on Islam) Palm_Dogg 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
An important article, on a topic not known to most people in my part of the world. Should help counter systematic bias. Already well written, but balance seems off for a truly great featured article. I have several suggestion below.
Most of references and quotes seem to be taken from historical source material. Although good quotes, and excellently footnoted, is their independant archaeological evidence for this battle? I assume not, lost in the sands of time, but clarify. I do not doubt the battle took place, but the specific names involved and numbers seem too exact for a historical (not religious) article. Example, are the Muslim graves recorded and countable?
For casualties and prisoners, the article quotes Ibn Ishaq and Al-Bukhari, basically two historical Muslim scholars. Are there surviving written records from the loosing Quraish side? Wendell 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are big comments.
If this becomes a featured article, many-many people with no background in Islam, Mecca, Medina, or Muhammad will read it. Thus consistent terminology is critical. Even after several read thoughs, I was confused by some shifting terms.
Article says At this point, both armies began firing arrows at each other. Muhammad gave orders for the Muslims to employ their ranged weapons, and only engage the Quraish when they advanced. I truely do not understand what the sentence is trying to say, nor the tactics. Both sides were firing arrows (a ranged weapon). Then Muhammad ordered for his troops to emply ranged weapons (which they already were). Does engage in this sentence mean hand-to-hand melee combat? Wendell 04:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the broader issues of content have been adressed at some length above (and this is rather outside of my area of interest); I'll briefly comment on some (minor) technical issues that are likely to come up in a FAC nom:
Hope that helps! — Kirill Lok s hin 04:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've tried to do most of your suggestions. Wendell, does that footnote at the beginning clarify everything? Palm_Dogg 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This looks really good. I anticipate supporting it on FAC after the above points are resolved.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on whether this is ready for FAC. — Johan the Ghost seance 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The article looks good, the popular section is a bit too short to be worth while, does the Cape appear anywhere else, books, journals of notable explorers, film etc?-- nixie 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I belive that the 16mm article needs more infomation then is all ready there and should aim to please people in the industy and lay folk alike. Kylehamilton 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I just decided to get some opinion on this article. the conflict itself was pretty limited so the article probably might not be as lengthy as other war-related ones, but it still looks concise enough. After all I don't find that a FA should only be of a minimum length and brevity is a good thing IMO. Anyway the images are mostly PD and I have ensured that all issues concerning the factual accuracy and neutrality have been properly addressed. I would appreciate any help provided in improving this article and hopefully lead to a FA status. Thanx. Idleguy 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Stbalbach 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The external links in main article body should be transformed into proper notes/references before any FAC process.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of issues with this article.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after: Yeah, he was the first to be shot down, I just wanted you to add his name. IIRC, India's fatalities were somewhere around 1,000. have you crosschecked the figures? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As a quick note, the caption to the main photo appears to be inaccurate - unless it is being used in the direct fire role against Pakistani soldiers at the same altitude (which isn't likely as this would typically represent a miss-use of towed medium artillery), the Indian artillery gun appears to be in a travel configuration, at least while being photographed. -- Nick Dowling 11:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Kemps should be nominated because of the great card game it is! Seriously, i have a load of info and edited the page. I've checked it over myself for mistakes. Albeit the work done to it i think there may be a few kinks to sort out. Kemps is a forgotten card game and i think a good way to 'renew' its existance would be to feature it on wikipedia's main page. Nominaladversary 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The page is hard to comprehend so I tidied up some sections, clarifying meaning based on personal game-playing experience. - Golgotha
It's an important show in the history of British comedy, and it would be nice to get it featured, but I'd first like to see what could be improved. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
AndyZ 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This collaborative article have been listed for peer review to further improve the article after nearly an entire year of contribution by several Singaporean Wikipedians. Need checks on conventions used. Slivester 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
For a battle that essentially determined the size of the United States and Mexico, and led to the United States/Mexican War, this article needs rewriting, and then broken down into sections, such as Events leading to the Texas War of Independance; The Alamo and Goliad; The Long March; The Battle; The Aftermath; (years as an indenpendant country, what annexation by the US provoked in Mexico). Just thoughts. Once again, this is an article that after the millitary coordinator elections, needs attending to. old windy bear 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The series of articles we have on the Mongol Empire are simply not good enough to reflect a power that was the largest continuous land empire in recorded history, and that killed one quarter of the world's population in 50 years. After the Military Coordinator elections, I believe this is one area that needs immediate attention, and rewriting. old windy bear 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, peer review is peer review, so let me give you my opinion: decide whether this article is about a former state or history of a certain country, and format it accordingly. Consider the difference between People's Republic of Poland and History of Poland (1945-1989) (FA). Good examples of the former states are FAs on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Indo-Greek Kingdom. At that moment this article is a cross between history and a state - this needs fixing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The article has improved significantly since its previous review seven months ago. With an aim towards reaching FA quality, several editors have suggested it was time to request additional peer insight. Now that the second season of the show has concluded, the article has stablised, and has no serious content disputes. It is now very well-sourced, more than comparable to other TV series articles which have reached Featured status, e.g.:
As a long-time editor on the article, I'll be presumptive and say that we would welcome any suggestions for further improvements or additions which can be made. -- Leflyman Talk 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be grateful for comments on this page which has had a lot of work done on it, in particular to remove the peacock words which made it sound like a "tourist brochure" and to sort out a consistent use of English and Scientific names for fish, birds etc. A couple of people have suggested it should be put forward for a featured article but I'd really appreciate your comments first. Rod 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful comments. I've expanded the introductory paagraph a bit - do you think this is enough? I've improved the grid ref as suggested & put it in the into. I'm not sure about an ecology section & a leisure use section as surely information on fishing will be relevant in both sections. I will go & find the SSSI sheet & take another look at CVLBirding. Thanks again & keep em coming
Rod
20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to do many of the edits suggested including rearranging the sections etc. I've also asked other with local knowledge to help. I've asked for permission to use a map which shows the differnt areas, bird hides etc. I've also tried to do an info box table thing + map showing the location but it's not very good (my first attempt at this) could anyone help?
Rod
00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, having taken a better look at the page it seems there is very little about the construction, and that paragraphs that are about the construction are actually more about things like the prior archaeological surveys. Should mention things like compulsory purchases and who actually built it (the picture suggests it was Bristol Waterboard Co.). Is the dam concrete, earth or both? Joe D (t) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs a local map to illustrate the areas of the lake, where bird hides, bridges, access points are etc. I have sent requests to the owners of the maps at: [1] and [2] to ask if these could be used but had no response. I don't have the knowledge/software to do this & wondered if anyone else could help? Rod 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC) If this page is going to be Deleted, please move discussions to the Battle of the Thousand Islands talk page. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very good article. I am not familar with warfare in this era. Giving some historical warfare context section would help modern readers, but I do not have a good suggestion and that topic needs its own article. You can see my specific questions Wendell 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The fort would have been in range of cannon fire but the "rifles" (actually muskets) had an effective range of just 100 or 200 meters.
A small fort could take a pounding from cannon and hold out (a) because the cannon were relatively small field pieces being dragged by an army operating in a wilderness area and from small boats and (b) because the wooden palisades of this type of fort could easily be fixed in lulls in the bombardment.
Lafarge Dodger
22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Self-nomination What I believe is a thorough article on a now-defunct institution, the McLaughlin Planetarium in Toronto. Extensive references (done in the new Wikipedia style) plus an annotated image of the planetarium projector model that was used, and "before" and "after" images. ;-) I have covered off all that I can find about this planetarium in my researches. Comments welcome! Captmondo 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am requesting WP:PR for this article not so much in an attempt for FAC, but because I feel it needs more focused NPOV input both from those within and without the topic area (scientific theory and experimentation, especially on controversial subjects). The article seems to be in a stable (though abrogated) state for now, but earnest disputes continue. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not nominating this for a FA per se. I'm just interested if it will hold up to a broader perspective. JaKaL! 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is really detailed for such an obscure topic. I haven't contributed to the article at all, at least content-wise. I just happened to stumble upon it wandering through the Wikipedia. It has references, pictures with acceptable copyright status, and all the requirements to be a Featured Article, with one problem- the article's main (and probably sole) editor, appears to be a German speaker, and therefore the article needs a thorough copy-edit and grammar check, which I unfortunately do not have time to do myself. I am fairly fluent in German, so I can finish translating the picture description pages, which are left in untranslated German, but the English grammar copy-edit is beyond the slim time I have available. Please help! This is an awesome article and could realistically be an FA within a month. RyanGerbil10 22:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a self-nomination. About two weeks ago, a newbie to Wikipedia nominated this for featured article prior to any peer reviews, references, etc., and the article rightly failed. (A bit of that discussion can be found here [ [7]]). As Collins is my favorite singer, I didn't like having that fail mark appear at the top of the talk page and spent the weekend fixing it up, listening to the suggestions made during the original nomination, adding references and deleting questionable material. As such, I would like to submit it for peer review.
The original article had no references and over half the page was a long list of albums, band members, etc. (See here [ [8]] for the article at time of the original nomination). Now that it is clean and referenced, I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article further. As well, I would like another pair of eyes to review it for any spelling/grammar mistakes as well as to ensure NPOV.
Thanks in advance.
-- Ataricodfish 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Fremantle Prison is a world heritage site with an extensive and interesting history. The article has been edited by a prison tour guide currently employed at the prison and has benefited by the many great facts and images donated by this Wikipedia editor with lots of personal knowledge of the site. Many other editors have also contributed their knowledge to bring this article to where it stands today. Any feedback on how we may improve this article in an attempt to gain featured status is welcome. -- Longhair 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
A controversial subject related to Scientology. Following a recent rewrite, the article is looking much healthier and much better referenced, with 80 footnotes (!). I'd like to get it up to Featured Article status in due course. It would be very helpful if anyone could take a look and see whether there are any issues that need to be addressed. -- ChrisO 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Just revised and added to this article. Still have a ways to go; just looking for comments. Thank you. Fergananim 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The bit about how his name should be pronounced doesn't need its own section - I'd use either a sentence in the intro or a footnote for this. I prefer it when years aren't wikified but don't think there's any policy on this. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 15:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've had another look at the article and don't think it's ready for PR; it doesn't meet the "nearly FA standard" criterion at the top of the page. It could do with some sources for "...should be written and pronounced as Rury" and "...believed to..." (both times). At the moment it reads more like a story than an encyclopaedia article: phrases like "...treated so gingerly..." and "not believed to have had any issue" seem a bit weird to me, unless they're common phrases in Ireland in which case by all means keep them in. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is pretty comprehensive I think but I'd like to get another pair of eyes here. Asdfwiki 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My fellow writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, and suggested that it be put up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. I consider it to be extremely complete for an event this long ago, but I'd appreciate any feedback, particularly on issues I might not have noticed. Jdorje 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not a particularly great article, but it has been improving incrementally for some while—getting better organized, more fully referenced, etc. The talk page tells a history of obscure quarrels and opaque debates (which, if you're familiar with Pynchon himself, may seem oddly fitting). Right now, I'd just like to attract a few fresh brains and see if a new perspective or two could be helpful.
Be seeing you. Anville 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather fond of this article about an interesting figure in Indonesian anti-colonial history. I'll be interested in suggestions - any parts that need more (or less) context in order to be understandable? Suggestions for improving the prose? Thanks! CDC (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding this article for the past week or so, and would like comments on it. I'm thinking of nominating it as a FAC sometime in the future. Scott 5114 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is on PR for an unprecedented 3rd time ( 1 | 2). Since the last PR, it has undergone substantial change, not in the content, but in the style of writing and summary. Please give your comments on how it can be imrpoved. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 (review me!) 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice, well written article that I think is headed for FA status. McNeight 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the status of this article? Is it the correct version to review? Wendell 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Animania/archive1
It's been a while since the last peer review, the article has undergone a little change since then, I've added one image (still yet to trawl through the photos taken this year to see if there's anything usable), and I'd like to see this article moved as close to Good Article (at least) as possible. Besides the lack of images, the only main concern was a lack of pages linking in, and unfortunately without spamming I'm not sure how many articles I could validly add a link in.
In particular, I'd like to know which GA criterion the article currently passes, and which it fails (I appreciate that there's a lack of reliable sources, although I wouldn't mind being told where I might look for more). Confusing Manifestation 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is already pretty good, but it has no references, and also needs some cleanup and a few redlinks fixed/removed. -- Janke | Talk 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Self-nom, at the urging of others. Ultimate plan is to head for Wikipedia:Featured list status, but could do with some input before I head thatwaywards. The Tom 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm refiling a peer review for this article. We started a sort of cleanup drive a few months ago in order to improve it, and the article has really come a long way. Many editors have done a lot of work on it. I'd like some response to how well the article shapes up, and what needs to be fixed (I'm already looking into the {{ fact}} parts). Thanks. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the poem that is used current by Mexico as their national anthem. This was a fairly decent article, but I added some things to it, added recordings, and trimmed the lyrics down. However, I do ask that before I sent this to FAC, if the following can be checked:
There was a very nice annon who did a grammar check on the article, so the prose looks good, IMHO. Any other suggestions are welcome. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 07:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a few external links (one of which is dead) in the text that should be converted to footnotes. Looks good, though. Gflores Talk 05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of this article was written by me and M.C. Brown Shoes. I'd like to get some input about what could be improved in the article, and whether it is comprehensible for someone not as familiar with the band. I guess it is too short to become FA (the band only was around for 9 nine months really), but I'd still like to get this article as good as possible, so pretty much any suggestion is welcome. This article was previously peer reviewed ( archived here) in September 2005. -- Fritz Saalfeld ( Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This article was a WP:FAID winner last week, and has been improved. I'm planning to nominate it for FA status. Please comment. Conscious 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Also this article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631
I cannot find it right now, but I remember several books and newspapers printed before 1970. In 1970 was that the people begin to talk about Brazil as tri-champion and the previous tetra-championship of Uruguay (1924,1928,1930 & 1950) was forgotten. Also the same article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631 applies
You're right, JoaoRicardo. Some of these statements should be supported by references, the rest just removed. Speaking about incidents, do you mean something like the Hand of God goal? Conscious 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
By the same numbering:
Thank you for your help with an outside view, JoaoRicardo, especially as you say you "can't stand sports". (That doesn't mean we're finished.) Conscious 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel like an image should be added in the lead. Also, the sections seem out of place. The results table seems out of place. I think it'd be better if all the article text (media coverage, selection of hosts) be higher up and then the results table and records. Something like that. Gflores Talk 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Before FAC, it might be better to have a good editor copyedit this once again to polish the language.
>> In the Olympic games of 1924 and 1928, Uruguay won the football gold medal, in the first intercontinental football competitions[1]. These victories led the FIFA to choose Uruguay as the home of the first FIFA sanctioned World Cup.
I believe another reason was that Uruguay was celebrating the centenary of their independance at the time. Can you check whether your sources consider it important enough to be worth a mention ?
>> The World Cup is now a truly global event, with as many as 197 nations entering qualification for the 2006 edition.
197 nations is mentioned twice in the article. The repeat may be avoided. Tintin Talk 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an article for a little-known disorder that until the Internet came along, it was difficult to even find information about. I'm concerned about proper referencing and linking to sources, and the overrall organizational layout of the article. I've tried to cover all areas thoroughly, and to check spelling and grammar, but would appreciate a review of the writing in general. MamaGeek Joy 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article needs lots of help. At first glance, it reads like it was written by people not very clear about the difference between a disease and a clinical manifestation or presenting complaint, nor easily able to distinguish hypotonia itself from other frequently associated neurological problems. There are a few glaring problems:
You might post a request for content help among the editors who would consider this an ordinary and well-known topic with an extensive knowledge base and research literature going back a century (rather than a "little-known disorder until the internet"-- this surprised me-- whole books on the topic were written before the internet was imagined). I tried to clear up some confusions in the early paragraphs but we have a number of editors with real neurological expertise at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine. alteripse 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Resubmission. First peer review request, failed FAC, to-do list at Talk:Bjørnøya. The points from FAC have mostly been adressed, but the article should get some copyediting before it can be resubmitted to FAC. Thanks. Kosebamse 08:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks again, Kosebamse 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Article about a top division football (soccer) club from England. I've been making gradual improvements to this article for about as long as I've been wikiing, and would appreciate any comments, particularly from non-football fans. It could probably do with a few fresh pairs of eyeballs for copyediting too. For comparison, Arsenal F.C. and IFK Göteborg are FAs about football clubs. I realise the article could do with a photo of the team in action, and I'm looking into it. Oldelpaso 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Generally, it's good. A few things:
Intro:I'd expand this to three paragraphs and have some more on the club's history here. The "known for their loyalty and good humour bit" looks like it could do with a source, but then my bias on this subject is well known :-)
History: It looks better with the subsections, but if you're thinking of putting this onto FAC I'd merge the first two as the people on there like a good whinge about articles with too many subsections. You'll get similar complaints about the Colours and badge section as well, so if you can find a way to expand or merge it it might be worth doing so. The 1999-present section could be better: I don't see why a 9th place finish and an own goal against QPR need mentioning - there must be something more notable to write about? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Oldelpaso, who responded to the American football peer review, has asked me to take a look at this article. I have to point out that when it comes to soccer articles, I don't have the perspective of a typical American. I understand phrases like "four points clear at the top of the table" because I lived in Europe and have read about European soccer on Wikipedia. However, that phrase would not make sense to most Americans. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, because this is not a "basic-level" article like American football should be. There is one Anglicism I might change, though: in the U.S., "silverware" means what you call "cultery." It looks a little funny to see it used to mean "trophies."
I think the article is pretty solid. I have touched up the grammar a bit. I would put the second sentence in the past simple tense. Also, the sentence that begins with "In the 1950s, a City team..." is grammatically confusing. On the plus side, I love the phrase "despite its melancholic theme is belted out with gusto as though it were a heroic anthem."
The last paragraph in the "1999 to present" section is probably misplaced, as it discusses pre-1999 events. I also agree that there should be more info on the rivalry with "Man U." I know, for example, that in Glasgow, soccer allegiances often correspond to religion. Do certain types of people support each of the Manchester teams?
Only two questions came to me in reading the article:
Mwalcoff 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Qwghlm and CTOAGN - I've split the History to History of Manchester City F.C., I perhaps now need to condense it some more in the main article, and rewrite 1999-present. I've not found much to expand the colours and crest section yet, though I've not yet had the opportunity to go to the library. Mwalcoff - I've made changes for all the points you raised. Oldelpaso 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I just wrote an article about this medicine, and I'm really not sure what to do next. Are there any other sections I should write or areas that need expansion? Also, I'd appreciate some non-medical reviewers to comment on its accesibility to lay people. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The article reads well but in general "feels" a bit short. Unfortunately I'm not the person to ask about "layperson readability" but a general guideline is to define obscure terminology in the article itself. I'll get around at some point in doing a high-res structure for the article. The current one looks a bit blurry, IMO. Good luck! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This template was created to bring the two series together as they crossed over. Before using it on any page of either of those two series, a review would help determine if the work is good or not.
Lady Aleena | Talk 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Several editors recommended that this page undergo a peer review before being considered as a featured article. Other than footnotes and links within the body text, there are likely other issues with this page that have escaped the attentions of the authors. McPhail 14:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There was a pretty low-traffic peer review of this article before, Wikipedia:Peer review/3D Monster Maze/archive1. Thereafter, it had went through a FAC which failed, and a lot of modifications have been done to address the concerns raised. In the current state, one of the original FAC objectors is happy about the article enough to say it has "much potential" on the FAC if resubmitted again. Since there are still some issues I am unsure of (note also that I am not a native English speaker), I would be happy to have your help. Please be sure to read the article talk page, not just the article itself, before commenting/helping. -- BACbKA 10:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
Thanks again! -- BACbKA 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Maclean,
thank you very much for your edits. The language sounds much more encyclopedic following your edits. While you suggest to revert whatever I disagree with, I would like to hear your opinion on the points I had slight reservations about. Sorry for not answering right away, I have been a bit busy outside wikipedia last week.
Also, could you please look at the talk page? I would especially like a native speaker's opinion on the 2nd-person language issue raised there.
Thank you very much again for your help, BACbKA 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on how to improve this article, in particular to enhance the formating of the pictures, if there is too much or too little information in any of the sections and if anyone has any suggestion for further pictures to be included (particularly for the Between the Wars section) Thank you Nickhk 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Nickhk
I can confirm Brig AG Mac Percival was his son, having served with him. The Brevet title has me confused. I understood it was given to a select band of Lt Cols who had been marked out for future accelerated promotion.
This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past ( User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!
Most recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive4 bob rulz 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
From the brief look I took:
Is there still something missing from the article? -- Easyas12c 22:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Liberatore( T) 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is a former collaboration of the week and has been improved tremendously from its original state. My fellow contributors and I would like suggestions on any further work needed before nominating it to become a featured article. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. Kafziel 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Date | Invasion |
---|---|
722 BCE | Assyrian invasion of the Kingdom of Israel |
Hammurabi, during the course of conquering much of what is now known as the Middle East, defeated the Kingdom of Israel and sent its inhabitants into exile. (Van De Mieroop, 2005) This presaged future Greek and Roman conquest and, later, the Crusades. To this day, the region remains contested. |
I went through this process because it was suggest to me, however, I'm looking more for a peer review than a possible nomination, although if it was nominated that would be great as well. Nonetheless, I want to politely ask if those that have time can review the article and correct any grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as accuracy. Thank you for your time; I truly appreciate it. JonCatalan 03:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hope that helps. Keep up the great work! Captmondo 16:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Response:' Yes, you are correct, and I will link to Wolfram von Richthofen's article immediately, as well as provide the full name. As for the reference to Megargee, I should probably just reword the entire sentence and take out the reference to his name. As for the images, you are absolutely correct, and I'll have to work that out. As for anything online, a lot of links refer either to the Third Battle of Kharkov, or have the two mixed up - that board game is an example. It explains the Second Battle of Kharkov as what is normally regarded as the third (Manstein's recapture of the city in 1943). As for the rest, I'll get to work immediately, and I really appreciate it. Thank you for helping me out! JonCatalan 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Love the article and the subject. Wish I knew more and could help write not edit (nit-pick). These are just comments. Wendell 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Wiki stuff
Big comments:
Sentence by sentence breakdowns.
Response: I linked to the winter counteroffensive, as suggested. Any wiki-links to the local offensives will have to come later, when I have more times to search around for them. The rasputitsa link fixed, and Stalingrad is considered part of Operation Blue, but in all actuality Operation Blue did not envision an investment of Stalingrad under weeks after the operation began. The only reason they link to the same article is because there is discussion on the merging of the two, and most historians consider Stalingrad as Blue because it was, without a doubt, the largest sector of the offensive. As for the sentence in question, I fixed it up a bit because referencing to a multitude of books, at least IMHO, would not be effective, so I offered some justification. As for pictures, frankly, I don't have enough pictures; the two I have relevent to the battle I fear I will have to take off and ask them to get deleted, because there will be copyright issues; so the faster those pictures are replaced the better; unless, I'm wrong. There aren't many photographs of the battle that are open, and I so the only thing I can do is put up images of slightly relevent topics, although they were not directly in Kharkov at the time...unless, there's a better idea, which there most likely is.
Now, for the big comments. An encirclement would certainly be a welcomed thought for the Soviets, but the pincering of an area doesn't necessarilly imply that the original expected outcome was a full fledge encirclement, although many times it does end as such. But taking an enemy on on both flanks is a sound idea, as opposed to only one, where the enemy can simply move reinforces from the opposite location; in other words, it's an alternate to hitting piecemeal, IMO. As for the casualties, I don't know if comparison to the men originally introduced into the battle would help the issue; Beevor has been accused of POV in his books, at least where anti-communism is concerned, while Glantz is reknown for his use of Soviet archives, although there are a lot who doubt his figures as well - unfortunately, them two are the only sources I have that have pin pointed casualties enough to be of any service; although I certainly do have other sources, they don't go into too much depth. Finally, the German counter-attack on the 17th did introduce a final German push into the Izium salient, which would eventually open the path for Operation Blue; undoubtfully, the loss of so much personnel in May was a major reason why the Germans found it so easy to rip through the Soviet frontlines upong the launching of Operation Blue, and that's what I tried to imply. As for organizing the artile a bit better, I'll work on that - give me the weekend to finish it all up.
Now, for the sentence by sentence breakdown; I don't know where the author got those numbers. According to The German Army, by Matthew Cooper, and most other sources I have, the Germans claimed around 100,000 dead by the end of 1941, which seems different from the 250,000 claimed by the artile at Smolensk. Although not all of those were implied dead - rather casualties - you could only assume that at least 1/3 of those were deaths, which certainly seems to high. As far as I'm concerned Smolensk was a debacle for the Red Army, where they faced the crushing of their defense of Moscow. In fact, it's argued by more than one author that Moscow would have fallen had the Germans not stopped and instead sent their strength north and south [to Leningrad and Kiev, respectively]. I would certainly not doubt that strength of Soviet resistance, but I don't think the fact that they had suffered a major defeat can ever be forgotten. Nonetheless, I will change the wording a bit.
Well yes, in retrospect it is obvious that the Soviets were doomed. The Russians thought that the major offensive would occur against Moscow, as opposed to Stalingrad or the Caucasus, and so naming the battle as a local counteroffensive for the Soviets and a major effort for the Germans is not really a POV issue, as far as I see. It's just different perspective from two different sides; I don't think the Soviets ever envisioned that the 6th Army would be so reinforced. Nor did Timoshenko, as outlined by the article, even know about Operation Frederikus, which was ironically, the German operation to destroy the very salient he attacked out of. In other words, the Germans were prepared to strike for an opening blow against the Soviets, which would straighten the front for the eventual launching of Blue; the Soviets did not see their operation as the preamble of what would lead into a major summer offensive, AFAIK.
German defenses were knocked out; sorry for that terrible mistake. Was is now changed to were.
This next sentence quoted refers to the fighting. As far as written sources put it, the German resistance was brutal, as opposed to Soviet resistance on the 17th of May. I can reword the sentence and attribute less POV, which is what I think you're implying. Well actually, now that I look at it, it seems you took it out of context. The "inched foward" refers to Soviet movement of second echelon troops, not to offensive movements. In fact, this is what the entire quote should be, "The fighting was so fierce that the Soviets inched forward their second echelon formations, preparing to throw them into combat as well. Fighting was particularly atrocious near the Russian village of Nepokrytaia, where the Germans launched three local counterattacks. By day's end the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers." I don't see any POV issues over the penetration ranges; it simply states the greatest penetration of Soviet forces; whether the penetration was good or bad can be considered irrelevent; what is relevent is that they has suffered so many casualties, and were facing so much resistance, that they thought the slow movement of their reserves was necessary.
For the next sentence, I think it was use of two sources, which may use different names. I'll have to take tomorrow after class, and this weekend, to work around and edit that, as well as reordering the sequence of battle, and perhaps making more subsections for the battle.
For the next sentence, "The first 72 hours saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed," is the topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph explains the sequence of battle for the next 72 hours. The counter-attacks stopped refer to the localized counter-attacks, which I guess I need to establish, although I assumed that it would be understood since the sentence comes right after the sentence which explains the localized counter-attacks. But, I'll change it.
For point #5, I changed the sentence around a bit. I admit, I re-read it and was confused myself. I think I meant the localized-offensives and upon rereading it that's what makes the most sence, so I reworded it a bit to make more sense, although I figure that it'll make even more sense once I finish any reorganization of the article. Point #6 I think deals with the same, so I hope that answered that question as well. As for point #7 I think I answered that before. I said the greatest Soviet advance was 10kms deep, and then this was later illustrated as a spectacular gain,; "By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains", although now that I read it, even that's confusing...so I just reworded that as well.
And finally, point #8. Yes, the Russian forces sorrounded refer to Russian forces that had partaken in the offensive and were in the salient at that time. I guess I have to underscore that as well.
So, you can't begin to believe how much this criticism helped, and by the end of this weekend I hope to have worked out the major problems outlined by your review. If anybody has any information on pictures, I would love to hear it. But, if I can ask that all further review can be held until I finish with the reorganization to avoid flooding this with commentary while I work on the article. I'll leave a message here when I'm finished. Again, thank you a lot!
- JonCatalan 00:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I corrected several links for Russian generals, corrected Ewald von Kleist's name and link. The action has been broken into several subsections. I tried to use my judgement as to where the action changed from one side to another. I rather like how it's turned out. Cheers, Guapovia 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This has come on quite well in the 7 months since the last peer review and my last edit. What do you think - should I take it to FAC? The usual "inline reference" merchants will have a field day, I suppose: anything else? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Some comments and questions. Overall a good article. I realize that not every point can be address or expanded, some of these topics may be out of scope or require data that simply does not exist. Wendell 19:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Requests for article clarity:
Potential topics for a Featured Article:
Article expansion suggestions:
Dunno, seems a bit overkill, all that. If the article becomes that extensive, some of it should be broken into separate articles, no? Guapovia 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well-sourced article that I've worked a lot on over the last several months; considering FAC and placing on peer review to see where it needs improvement as part of that process. AUTiger ʃ talk/ work 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks again. AUTiger ʃ talk/ work 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This article was recently peer reviewed by the CVG project. I feel that this article has shown some improvement over the past month, but it could still use some work. I would like to know what needs to be fixed, expanded, improved, deleted, edited, and so on. I am hoping that us editors can get this article featured in the not-so-distant future. Anything and everything would be appreciated. Deckiller 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales has requested that we improve this article in return for the good will of the congressman's staff posting his official bio to the talk page instead of editing the article directly. I spent a few hours on it, and I've taken it as far as I can. -- James S. 10:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has come a long way and has a lot of detail on all past series of Australian Big Brother. I'm submitting it for peer review in an effort to fill the gaps on content and seek any other advice and suggestions on overall article appearance. Thanks. -- Longhair 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you think this needs anything else besides inline references to be ready for FAC?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
So here's the deal: I had this requested for a peer review before, the article looks pretty good - aside from the need for citations. This really is a request, but please consider this a recruitment as well! Are you good with military history? Please help edit - I have had some external factors inhibiting me from editing that article like I should have! Please see the first archive here. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please peer review this article. It was nominated for FA but many users suggest it be peer reviewed before it is nominated for FA. So please peer review this article as it seems to have many problems. Thank you Street walker 08:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to clean this article up as much as I can, but I really think that it could use some more work. A plot overview should be added, as well as a few other things. Add and correct as much as you can to make this a good article. ( Ibaranoff24 04:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
This article has come a long way since I first got at it and I feel that I've worked on it to the point where need help seeing its faults and how it can be improved. I would like this to eventually become Featured. A few more pictures would be nice. ==Impact== is not yet satisfactory either. Should there be a list of photographs taken by him? POV is also a concern. How does it read? The article's just not getting enough traffic (what else should link to it?). This needs more eyes. --
Rmrfstar
00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this ready for FAC? -- Rmrfstar 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the second Adelaide suburb to be edited to such a standard. Help would be appreciated through copyediting, link suggestion and general feedback. Examples of earlier suburb featured articles: Waterfall Gully, South Australia (nominated and worked on by myself) and Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory.
Thankyou. - G t 05:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Very detailed article and of course would like to further improve it. -- Wikipedical 07:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've written most of this article, with the intention of getting it up to featured article level. I'd like an idea of how far it still has to go & what'd be needed. AllanHainey 12:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see this become a featured article. I have an inkling it is getting close. What needs to be done to get it all the way? Run! 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks guys :) Run! 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Righto. Well it wasn't hard finding more things to say about the Weapons, so that section is much more comprehensive now. There's now an audio section which might need expanding, though I can't find a lot to say about the sound really. I know a friend who's obsessed with Worms:DC so I shall extract some information about that from him :). I'm plodding on with the inline citations, so there'll be more to come. I'm researching Hogs of War so that I can say something about that (fortunately, there's a wiki article on it). And I'm currently trying to get in contact with Team17 about their sales statistics for Worms. There was nothing on the site, but there might be soon. Run! 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is an understatement to say that this article is poorly written: filled with gramatical errors, uncited material and run-on sentences. But the subject matter is treated atrociously, and the examples very poorly, if at all, give any elucidation to the topic. There is almost nothing at all to distinguish it from Historical revisionism. I have removed some material, as you can see on the article's talk page, but this article makes a lot of accusations, and they need to be checked for validity. There may be a legitimate topic here (that's not my opinion), but this article is a rant that leaves a reader much more confused than when they went in. -- DanielCD 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
My introductory paragraph here may have been a little exaggerated, as it often can seem when one comes to an article that needs work and has people in conflict. I will try some other methods to try to get a little fresh air into it though. Thanks. -- DanielCD 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this FA status? -- Dangherous 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just completely rewritten and expanded the article based on the newly published biography by James Hansen. Looking for some more outside input as to where the article goes into too much depth or covers details that are obscure and unneeded in a Wikipedia biography. I haven't quite finished the footnoting and still want to cover the world tour he went on just after Apollo 11. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Imporant 20th century evolutionary biologist, is the article understandable for non scientists?-- nixie 23:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has improved a lot in the last month, most notably with the inclusion of a lot of relevant images, very detailed references for almost all the facts quoted, and standard sections as per country pages. The language has also been NPOVized to a great extent. So, I think we can move this into FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear other people's opninions in avenues for improvement. Thanks. -- Ragib 05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The cultural section needs a lot of work. Some of the prose is South Asian English, not English English, and some of the sentences are clumsy. Frex, "Contemporary Bangladesh keeps producing a substantial amount of litearture of all forms." That makes literature sound like the jute harvest. It would be better to say something about the number of newspapers, magazines, and books published, literacy, readership, and perhaps to mention the names of some well-known contemporary writers. Is there an article on Bengali literature?
The history section contains a lurid sentence which runs something like "Rape of Bangladesh was one of the worst genoicides in history, as bad as the genoicide in Cambodia" and there's a link to an emotional website. It was horrible, inexcusable, vile ... I hadn't realized that it was so terrible ... and I shudder to think that the perpetrators are still living at their ease. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cambodia, where Pol Pot managed to kill 25% of the population. The West Pakistanis didn't manage that in Bangladesh. Now perhaps "bad" is measured by population numbers, but that's a clumsy scale to use ... wiping out 100% of an Amazon tribe of 1000 people would seem "less bad" than killing 2000 people out of a population of 10,000,000. Perhaps you should leave out the judgements about more or less bad and just present the facts ... that's horrifying enough.
I'm sure that there are more nits to pick, but those were the biggest problems I saw. Zora 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll review in detail after the article is summarised and copyedited. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Just something I noticed right away were three links in the middle of the history section that need to be converted into references or something. Looking at the page in the printable version makes the section look ugly with the URLs present in the paragraph as opposed to at the bottom like the references. Pepsidrinka 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A page representing the highest wiki-tradition, a truly encyclopedic page, The page has all the ingredients to migrate to the status of a featured page. It is really heartening to note that as of now the page has no redlinks, as such the user shall have the luxury to dig deep into the contents covered in this page. I am re- reading the page very carefully, and shall surely come back with more comments, if required. -- Bhadani 08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
) and –
need to be used consistently. This looks great — good luck.
Saravask
23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Hi - I've just created "BangladeshTopics." Please help to customize and improve it. Rama's Arrow 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
How is the article right now? I've commented in bold replies to most of the points raised above, so please take a look and let me know. Thanks. -- Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made some major edits to the page including copyediting. A few red links are introduced, it should be made blue, 1 citation needed, and the highest point mentioned. I've removed the =Education= section as per the Wikiproject countries which does not list it. I've also merged =sports= under culture and pruned away victories over Pakistan etc. The only thing remaining is the =History= section. Up till this point in 1966, its president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was jailed and in 1969 was released after unprecedented popular uprising. the section is well summarised, but after that it becomes too detailed. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (citation and highest point provided-- ppm 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC))
I am resending this article for peer review as it has greatly improved since the start of the last peer review and I would like more comments on how this article could be improved. Tarret 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The topic is not very broad and diverse, but I am hoping to expand on it. Any suggestions, comments? — Eternal Equinox | talk 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure how useful any of these are, but some thoughts, at least. -- Telsa ( (t) (c)) 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Self Nomination. I think that this article is very comprehensive and well written. The majority is a translation from the German featured article and I have added inline citations. If anyone has any suggestions about how to improve this article, I would be obliged to improve it. Trebor27trebor 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking for ideas for improvement and suggestions about what needs smoothing out. I know we're missing data, but do you notice anything besides that? jengod 04:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
A fairly expansive article on a prominent Cold War icon. Would appreciate feedback on improving it to FA quality. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm nominating Canada for a peer review. It's a fairly good article, also noted by the good article status which it has received. I wanted to expand on it, but I decided the best way to expand would be to first find out what the thoughts of other Wikipedians are. Not just for myself, but for others so that we can collaborate and get it to FA status. I was using the United States article as a comparison, and one MAJOR section I noticed was Economy. To sum up, the section finishes before it starts. Another rather strange section is History, and Quebec sovereignty movement within it in particular. The former seems a bit brief, while the latter looks out of place.
There are definitely other areas to be improved or added, and that's where you peer reviewers come in. It's a pretty good article thus far. It's already reached FA on a couple of international Wikis, so why not in the English version?
So what do you think? how can we improve this article? ♠ SG →Talk 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I just got the main article on Michigan State University featured. I would now like to get this daughter article in shape to be a Featured Article. Please let me know what you think. — Lovelac7 07:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article is written to quite a good standard, but was wondering if there is anyway it can be expanded. Some areas may also need clarification, but I am not sure which sections or to what degree. This page is also subject to vandalism due to its slightly controversial nature, and any suggestions on how to minimise that aspect, if it can be minimised, would be appreciated. Allthesestars 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
When I first came to this page I was disappointed, so I rewrote it from scratch and I've got it to this state so far. I know the Gameplay section is woeful and needs much improvement - but what else can be added? Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks! — Wackymacs 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
More to come later :) Lord ViD 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This article has expanded and grown a lot since I first joined Wikipedia, but it requires focus so that it could get to the the quality exhibited by University of Michigan and Michigan State University. I would like to see this too become a featured article. R'son-W 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the editors of this article have worked hard on it. I'm looking for opinions from other Wikipedia editors and readers. Do you think it is fac quality? If not, what can be done to improve its quality? Anything else you might be interested in reading about the Eurasian race, but is not mentioned in the article? User:Carie 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Where it was disputed that Shannon Elsabeth and Paula Abdul were not Eurasian, THIS IS FALSE! Middle easterners ARE Asians as well. Anyone disagreeing this can also exclude people of mixed European and Indian descent. Most Northern Indians are Caucasoid in race and the mixed offspring of them and a European is quite distinct from a mixed white and East Asian. `Asian' in society in the US often refers to East Asian. If you include Indians, you've got to include Middle-Easterners. Paul 58.164.88.20 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a former featured article. It was removed because. It has received a bit of work lately. It seems to me most reasons for removal have been removed. I'm not sure if it's a featured article candidate like this but the topic is important enough ;-) to make it one. So some comments please. Some of the work was done by myself so I suppose this is a self-nomination. Piet 13:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Legendary engineer, I've started to 'reference' everything with the aim of getting it featured soon, comments very much appreciated before I back-reference the lot and submit for FAC. Thanks. -- PopUpPirate 00:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Part of the efforts made towards consolidating the Bangalore article, thereby making it more readable was to ultimately push the article for Featured Article nomination. Peer Reviews are deemed essential in channelling feedback and contributions from other Wikipedia contributors. Overall, I think the article is as concise as it could get without running into the risk of not painting an accurate portrait of the city. Some of the main areas I think that still need improvement are citations and references — many statistical and factual assertions within the article do not have in-line citations, as of yet. Spellcheck and grammatical errors need to be addressed, I feel. Rewording may also be required for some sections of the article where a logical flow of ideas around a central theme dosen't appear to be occuring. Please review Talk:Bangalore ("To-do List") for a list of issues that have been addressed and for any open issues.
Many of the previously over-expanded sections that made for uninteresting reading (History, Economics, Culture) have been moved to separate, independent articles. I invite you to please provide your thoughts and insight on improving the quality of this article, as we move towards pushing the article for a Featured Article nomination. Thanks. AreJay 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
(1) The lead should be more circumspect - brief history, geography, culture and economics. The present is not good enough, and should not be broken down into 2-3 lines.
(2) Paras within sections are too frequent. Need to have larger paras to embody consistency and fluency.
(3) check out Malwa, Geography of India and Chennai peer reviews for some subtle but good tips on India-geography FAs.
Aside from this, its a beautiful piece of work. All the best! Rama's Arrow 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the comments already made, these are a few of my observations. I believe that an article should be interesting apart from being comprehensive. I think this article can be improved further to reflect that. The role of Mysore Kingdom in the industrialisation of Bangalore, esp. the role of Mokshagundam Visvesvarayya and Mirza Ismail need to be touched upon. Also, a reading of the history section gives the wrong impression that Bangalore was ruled by Britain alone, and not along with Mysore kingdom. This needs to be addressed. Facts should be presented in a more interesting manner. e. g. Instead of saying Wipro and Infy, 2 of the top 3 IT firms are headquartered in B'lore, it cd be stated that out of the top 10 IT firms , X no. have offices in Bangalore (or) more than 40% of World's SEI-CMM level 5 companies are in Bangalore etc. - I am just giving an example, the actual no.s may be somewhat different. Also, I believe the largest no. of engineering colleges were in Coimbatore. After the acts of Andhra Pradesh government in 1999-2001, maximum no. of engineering colleges are believed to be in Hyderabad-Secunderabad. I think we would need to quote from references like "Network City: Planning the Information Society in Bangalore – James Heitzman; Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2004, pp.368, Price: Rs.795/- (Hardbound)" to address WP:V concerns. Also, institutes of national eminence such as the ISEC and the fact that many MNC subsidiaries are located in Bangalore needs prominent mention. Comparisons between Bangalore's cosmopolitanism vis-a-vis rest of Karnataka's rural economy, thus leading to tensions between urban bureaucracy and rural polity need at least a passing mention. Interesting work, overall, I would say. -- Gurubrahma 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Great work Arejay! Some tips/notes:
Be careful when you upload images from flickr. Image:Bangalore Mosque.jpg is tagged as {{ cc-by-2.5}}, but the source shows the license as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0, which is a non-free license.
It would also be great, if you can upload the images directly to commons.
But please do not add URL's directly to the paras.
More or less, its good, except for some copy-editing & rechecking of facts/references. -- Pamri • Talk 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, AreJay, the article looks really good to me! I especially like the layout and picture choice in the economics section. Just a few suggestions, which I think a few other people may have already touched on.
I hope the article gets featured soon! Mgummess 04:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read through the page again, and I must say I like all the improvements. The article is much easier to read and keeps my interest throughout. I only have two suggestions for minor edits.
Once again, these are just incredibly picky suggestions for minor edits. Overall, I think the article flows very smoothly now and sounds great. It has a great chance of making featured in my opinion. Mgummess 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The editors of this recently created article are requesting peer review to ensure the article meets WP:MOS. The information provided in the article is well referenced we believe and our hope is to have the article become a Wikipedia:Featured article in the near future. Any and all suggestions to help us make this article better are welcome.-- MONGO 10:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-- maclean25 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have worked hard on this article (with others of course) to get it to its current standard. I would appreciate the views of a wider audience regarding its quality, deficiencies and suitability for FAC. Thank you Mark83 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
* 1 History o 1.1 Formation * 2 Products o 2.1 Air o 2.2 Land o 2.3 Sea * 3 Recent Events (ie Major events since merger) + 1.3.1 Eurosystems o 1.2 Merger undertakings * 3 Corporate Information o 3.1 Major events since merger o 3.2 Future of Airbus shareholding o 3.3 Bribery allegations o 3.4 Financial information o 3.5 Corporate governance o 3.6 Organisation o 3.7 Joint ventures etc. * 4 See also * 5 References * 6 External links
Which would put the focus back on what the company does rather than its politics, leaving room for expansion of what BAE actually does. Would love it as Featured one day soon. -- PopUpPirate 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article a lot recently, adding references and removing POV. I also wrote the entire Pepsi section of this article. I am trying to get this to featured status, so any feedback would be excellent. — Wackymacs 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This artcile has been granted Good Article status and seems to meet the vast majority of criteria to become a featured artcile. But it would be useful to have some input concerning the section on objections, the length, struture of the artcile or other matters.-- Lacatosias 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to make all the changes recommended below by ApolloBoy. I have also taken new photos which can be uploaded to the "year to year changes" as was recommended by Maclean25. Please continue offering advice on how to improve this article Evenprime 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is just about ready to become featured in my openion, and peer reviewing it to point out the flaws will just edge it closer! -- Karrmann
Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1
This article has changed very significantly since the last peer review. It was delisted as a GA, had a major overhaul, and was then promoted again. It has been assessed as an A-class article. I am hoping to get the article to Featured Article status if possible. Any comments would be most welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The technical detail in this article is fabulous, but the popular impact is grossly understated. The news coverage and public reaction around the world was enormously exaggerated relative to the number of lives lost and the amounts of money involved. Public awareness of the Challenger disaster ranks at least as high as the Chernobyl meltdown and much higher than the Bhopal disaster, which caused far more fatalitites and costs. Challenger has become a reference point in debates about engineering safety, and is discussed in detail in many university engineering programmes and safety training in large companies. It has spawned dozens of books, documentaries, and training videos. This impact on the popular consciousness merits discussion.-- Yannick 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just started reading this, but will do more later. A few little things that the automated review probably already caught (I fixed a few in one section but now have to go):
-- Will.i.am 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave this article a more thorough read today. Here's some quick comments, but feel free to ignore them if they're too annoying. I also added a few examples of tiny grammar changes that may help you in copy-editing:
That was all I found for now, this is a really nice article! Good luck with it!-- Will.i.am 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has recently been at WP:FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur for the super-duper extended nom) and had a peer review (that I delisted pretty sharpish - I was impatient, what can I say?). Since the FACs, it has had a major rewrite ( [19]) and I feel that it's really ready to be FAC now. I even got a few opinions from IRC users who know nothing about it and acted upon their comments. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
More references would also be good, especially in the anime section; links to the episode page on Serebii.net would look great. I'll try doing that myself soon (at least, when I don't have a midterm exam in two hours!)
Also, I know this may be original research, but perhaps a section on how useful Bulbasaur can be in battle (at least, when it evolves into Venusaur). Just how it is immune to Toxic and Leech Seed, is resistant to a good number of types, and has high defense status (perhaps calling it a "Tank"). Personally I would love to see this article be FAC! While I'm not that into Pokemon anymore, I still love Bulbasaur a lot. But I know there are a lot of bashers out there that might not let that happen. This weekend, if I have some time, I'll try to improve this article myself and see what can happen! Good luck. --TheWindshield 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it is a fine article, the day after publication. It may be early, but I am looking to FAC soon. Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This article was peer reviewed in February 2006 (see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Enceladus (moon)/archive1). A number of the requests were answered and since then I have worked to bring the article further into compliance with the standards for a Featured Article. In addition recent results have further helped in filling the article out.
I would like to submit this article as a featured article, however I thought it was wise to have this article go through one more peer review, particularly after these recent major edits, before submitting. So suggestions for work needed to get this article to Featured Article status will be greatly appreciated.
There are two major issues that I would like to acknowledge. First, the article lead does not yet conform to WP:LEAD. Currently, the article lead is one paragraph in length when it should be 3-4. Second, I am a little lost in how best to cite and reference this article. I have both a notes section, containing the numbered citations from the article using the the <ref> element as well a References section, where full citations for journal articles and books used are listed. This does give the appearance that the references are being given twice in these two different sections, Notes and References. This was done after reading the comments of several FACs that failed because the inline citations looked cludgy after including the full citations inline using templates. So the citations inline, displayed in the notes section, are in shortened, Science-journal style, whereas in the references section, full citations using the Cite Journal and Cite Book templates. This reduces the cludge of templated inline citations, but increases article length. So advice on how citations and references should be arranged would be appreciated. -- Volcanopele 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to place my userpage (admittidly not an article) on Peer Review so that it all its bugs can be removed. I would like to see if people think loading times are OK, if the design is OK or if it would put people off editing my userpage, and if it looks good.
Thanks for your time! --
Fir0002
21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
eeek! Looks bad on 800x600. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The article has been written by many including myself over a long period of time. Most importantly, the first sections, Conception (Inspirations and Script) and Casting (Background) as well as the Music section lack references big time. This is because most of the information was noted from interviews and other material from the special edition DVD. So how does one go about to reference that form of media? I can go and search the internet for some sources, but I doubt I would find them all. So is it possible to use a DVD/DVD material/DVD booklet as a reference, if so, how?
Thats the main issue at the moment, but if any could check for things like bias, style etc that would be great. Any help/comment/suggestions would be great. Thanks Forever young 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is a rather important topic to me, and I've been working on it for a period of several months, however I'm not sure where to go from here other than finding a few more good references and citations. At this point, it needs some new sets of eyes, particularly those not terribly familiar with the topic. Is it understandable to the layman? Does it make sense? Do you have any questions unanswered after reading it? Thanks! Scott Ritchie 06:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Myself and a number of other people (mostly, if not entierly, the other people) have been working to make Red vs Blue a featured article. We beleive that the article is currently ready for a peer review, the next step towards nominating it for a featured article, and would appreciate your imput. Thank you. Dr. B 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
On behalf of User:Dark Kubrick, who asked me to help him write this: I'm going to try to keep an out-of-universe perspective on this article, but I need help in knowing what sections to add or delete. I'm planning on adding a "Depiction" section, and rewrite the Characteristics part for less cruft and speculation. Debate and Theories will probably go or be merged somehow. Plus I'll add a concept and creation section. Any other topics the article might need to cover? Thanks. Dark Kubrick. 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest when I read a while ago I found it very informative for something that doesn't exist. But yeah, I think it'd be neat to take the fictional information on it's lifecycle (which fascinates everyone) and condense it into it's own section, and get on with the creature's popularity. Wiki-newbie 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The featured articles on fictional characters already provide a wonderful (self-explanatory) outline: Appearances, Characteristics, Concept and creation. - Tutmosis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Kinda obvious...I'm looking for more specific details...-- Dark Kubrick 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have again reworked this article and have combined sections together. The last time this article was placed under peer review it received little attention. I hope to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Apart from these minor things, it lloks to me ready for FAC. I do not judge the prose, because I am not a native English speaker, but again I don't see any serious prose deficiencies.-- Yannismarou 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi All - I request your assistance and advice on raising this article to FA status. It would be fabulous to have an article regarding one of the greatest glories of ancient India's civilizations on FA. I've expanded the text data and added pictures, but there is a lot of scope for improvement before it becomes FA class. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, looks good upon cursory glance. A few initial notes:
between numbers and their units (i.e., 665 [[candela]]s)–
to separate numerical ranges (i.e., in fiscal year 2000–2001
)More critique later ... Saravask 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Clarification I know a lot of material has been added from one source, but I've taken care to avoid a blatant copyvio. I'll be making further revisions with your help to incorporate more from other sources. Rama's Arrow 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
All the concerns of Sundar and Saravask have been addressed. The few dishonorable exceptions include:
(1) the compass-8/12 division of sky note in intro is referenced thru the "science" section.
Rama's Arrow 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi All - All the images have been put under fairusein|Lothal license. Only one, the painting portrayal on the top of the page is under questionable copyright - I'm afraid it calls for deletion. Thankfully I have a bunch of personally-taken photographs of Lothal that I can upload here by the weekend. Rama's Arrow 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Please get refs from more than one source! All the notes on the text are from one source. Besides that, basic copyediting reqd.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd personally break this up to read:
Hi - (1) "Archaelogy" is a section talking of Lothal's discovery, associated discoveries in the Gujarat region in terms of Indus valley civilization, and an archaelogical summary of city history. As opposed to that "Excavated City" discusses the sites that a traveler will see in Lothal, of what parts of the city have been excavated, etc. It is better that this section follows the "Charting history" and "Attributes" section, which explains how Lothal people built their place, and that "Archaelogy" be the best first section, leading into a detailed account of history, civilization and the present remains.
(2) I've renamed "Culture" to "Attributes..." becoz culture will often exclude the scientific achievements, economy and industry in its meaning. Also "Excavations is not good" becoz Excavation proper means digging up, nothing else. "Excavated City" is good title to describe the present resurrected remains of Lothal.
Thanks for your help on the grammar. I will introduce fresh re-writes on Monday and Tuesday.
Rama's Arrow 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you know about Google Book Search and Google Scholar? Can get lots of useful info from scholarly sources for new footnotes. Saravask 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I will introduce a major round of revisions, fresh information, new images, expansion and re-organization from February 13 to 17, and I believe this article will be ready by February 18. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's very well done, so I'll comment on some deeper points. The biggest issue seems to be that the referencing is heavily focused on one source. I'm sure it was the best source you had, but are there any additional current papers/works that shed significant new light on the issue since the 1985 book? The article doesn't mention any differences of scholarly opinion which I know is quite strong for the Indus Valley civilization in general. Perhaps that doesn't significantly affect this topic, but there's got to be some. Is Lothal's importance or reasons for/manner of downfall disputed at all? If you really wanted to take it to the next level some historiographical analysis would be included. Are there any significant criticisms of the ASI's methods/conclusions that would impact the information in the article? Is there any work on Indus Valley topics by Pakistani researchers that differ from the conclusions presented? Another detailed point is the intro to the 'Civilization' section states the people made significant contributions to human civilization in the era. That's a pretty strong statement and implies they made developments that were adopted elsewhere and did not just adopt what had been discovered by others. It also seems to imply or at least leaves open the possibility that the contributions had lasting effects on later civilization(s). Is there evidence to support either of these points? That paragraph could use expansion anyway as it is a bit short at two sentences. So yes I'm a tough critic, but the quality of the work so far leads me to believe you can meet these points too. - Taxman Talk 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I will complete this reply as I make the additions of data requested. Rama's Arrow 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe there are several theories that look at the disappearance of the Indus valley civilisation. Looking at only the flooding theory, seems incomplete, imo. Otherwise this is a good article. btw, I was wondering if lethal and Lothal have the same etymologicl roots ;) ... -- Gurubrahma 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Previous PR here. This was recently the US CotW, which saw some significant improvement. I've been working on it a long time and would like to bring it to FAC. Tuf-Kat 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Quick comments:
Circeus 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think of article length in terms of paragraphs (I think each paragraph averages out to about 1k), because I sometimes use the sentence paragraph technique, especially with expansive topics like this one.
For a grand total of 53 paragraphs, which I don't think is unreasonable for this topic. I considered cutting the institutions section entirely, but decided not to -- it would only drop 2k anyway. Tuf-Kat 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not; I know it needs some work, but let's see some feedback, please :) Deckiller 04:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK everythings in there, it just doesnt seem quite right. -- PopUpPirate 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, there's a lot of work to do but I intend to make a proper go of it!! -- PopUpPirate 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This article has been through a complete overhaul over the past month and I would like any feedback in ways that it can be improved. I would one day like to see it as a featured article. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
An audio sample would be great for the article, but I don't know how to upload one. If anyone can add one to the article it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Trebor27trebor Sanssouci translation
This article have had a lot of enhancements/expansions/corrections lately, a peer review I think is appropriate at this point. → Aza Toth 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am hoping to one day achieve featured article status for this article. Any and all comments are appreciated. -- Myles Long/cDc 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
KILO-LIMA 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This recently received "good article" designation with a comment that it was close to FA quality. The December peer review stressed a need for citations. The article now has 50 footnotes, which is more than most biography FAs. What would take it to the next level?
Durova 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 67 footnotes - I've been busy.
Durova
06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Try to use a more complicated sentence structure in some places to tie related sentences together. The current writing is very "basic" in that all sentences are very simple. For instance: "By the beginning of 1429 nearly all of the north and some parts of the southwest were under foreign control. The English ruled Paris and the Burgundians ruled Rheims. The latter was important as the traditional site of French coronations." could have a little more "flow" if it were condensed into two or even one sentence. Also this is another "dangler" since "north and some parts of the southwest" is used as a noun but these are really adjectives (does this mean "north and some parts of the southwest of France"?). — jdorje ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think in terms of facts, sequence, references and illustrations - it has everything. I think all it needs is to be edited so that it acquires a "more complicated sentence structure" as Jdorje commented. I find a good technique for detecting whether the flow is right or not, is to read it out loud. If that's not possible, at the very least read it paragraph by paragraph rather than sentence by sentence, in the same way you would if reading it aloud, rather than skimming through it. Whatever does not flow will become more prominent and easy to spot. I think the whole article would benefit from this approach because the short sentences occur throughout and give it a stilted style, but I don't think the "fix" is big. I think everything is there and just needs to be sewn together. I'm not sure how much time I'll have over the next few days but I'll try to help when I can. cheers. Rossrs 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest, simply for the sake of being more precise, that the reference to her home village being at Domrémy be modified to read, Domrémy-la-Pucelle. There are actually several other villages in NE France which begin with the name of Domrémy (Domrémy-Landéville, Domrémy-aux-Bois and Domrémy-la-Canne, to name three), though perhaps back in the year 1421, there may have only been one village called Domrémy. Jeanne d'Arc's home can be found in Domrémy-la-Pucelle at 48°26'31.88"N 5°40'28.27"E, using Google Earth's GPS coordinates. Canuck55 ( talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
"Possible Motivations" as a sub-section
I wanted to find out if my ideas for the improvement of the
Self-harm article are supported by people (other than me). This improvement focuses on the
"Psychology" portion of the article.
The13thzen
09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I came across this article by chance, and it looks good to me. It is a central part of a wider project and it seems that some relevant matters (read: political implications of global warming) have deliberately been moved to related pages, but otherwise it looks fairly complete. Stability could be an issue, though. Kosebamse 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
For a long time, this article has been at the center of strong POV and factual controversies (one Arbitration I can remember, likely more), so for that reason alone, it's unlikely to ever get featured. Circeus 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now nearly, but perhaps not quite, comprehensive in its content. We'd appreciate comments on layout, readability and whether it's understandable to lay people, as well as whether anything's missing. Joe D (t) 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think the usage of the neologism "bright" in the intro should be changed, especially since according to the wiki article describing this uncommon usage, Dawkins is one of those promoting the term as described. The intro should rather say who describes Dawkins as "bright" and give more of a context; alternatively this could be discussed in the body of the article rather than in the intro. The reason I think there should be more context is that this definition is not common usage, and the (appropriate) quotation marks don't give enough context to explain what is meant by calling him "bright." Kaisershatner 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The subject matter of this article seems particularly compelling at the moment, given the current world focus on the issues surrounding the clash of Islam and the west; and the struggle today between Israel and the Palestinians over the 'Holy Land', which in some ways echoes that of the era of Manuel Comnenus and the Crusaders. Over the past couple of months this article has expanded and changed hugely, and I believe it is now at a stage where a little constructive feed-back would go a long way towards helping the article to eventually become a FA. Proof-readers and comments would be much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions! I've tried to make all the changes mentioned here, so I was wondering, what's the next step on the way to making this article a FA? :D Bigdaddy1204 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with seeing ManuelI as the last great Byzantine emperor. In lieu of what he achieved he seems to be unable to focus on any area of his frontier long enough to re build the empire or generally strengthin it. He was at least a competant emperor but is he worthy to be considered a great emperor? He managed to hold the emperor together but then again Myriokephalon occurred and the empire was dealt another death stroke and within serveral decadesof his death the fourth crusade occurred. Yamam
"Manuel I Comnenus (November 28, 1118 – September 24, 1180), called Megas ("the Great"), was the last of the truly 'great' Byzantine Emperors."
I agree with Yamam that Manuel had the failings mentioned, which were an important feature of his character as in many ways it was these failings which caused the ultimate failure of the Comnenian recovery of the empire. Since the cohesion of the Comnenus family was not going to hold together after his death, in many ways Manuel's reign was a crucial window of opportunity, in which the Byzantine Empire had a chance to recover from Manzikert and achieve lasting greatness again, or if it failed to do so, face another period of decline after Manuel's death.
More specifically, in the opening sentence I wanted to convey his importance as the last Byzantine Emperor to rule over an Empire that was an empire. After Manuel, Byzantium would only linger on as a shadow of its former self, not really large or powerful enough to merit the description of 'empire' at all, except as a description that helps to identify it as the remnant of the greatness that had passed away. But if he should not be called the last of the great emperors, what can we do with that lead sentence, which I think is very important to the article? We need a way of explaining his importance here, without necessarily using the term 'great'. Ideas on this would be very much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The last significant, important emperor that still managed to project Byzantine power and influence. could be a good way to start. ( Yamam 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC))
Can someone tell me how I can fix my footnotes? I'm about to nominate the article for FA but I think this last simple technical issue needs fixing first. Bigdaddy1204 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This article deals with the May 18, 1927 series of bombings that killed forty-five people, mostly grade school children, in Bath, Michigan. The article itself is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan and Featured Article status is being sought. The anniversary date is coming up shortly and I hope this can be ready for Article of the Day status for that date. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. This is the first request for Peer Review. Jtmichcock 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
NB: I have been persuaded that the article should be titled "Bath School disaster" with the lower-case D. I will modify this after the peer review is completed insofar as I am concerned that a Move now could screw up this sub-page. Jtmichcock 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I have read the link, but I don't see anything on the linked page mentioning that he had enough assets to pay off the mortgage? Did I miss it, or is that sentence in the article incorrect? -- 94.195.20.3 ( talk) 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
Many people have worked hard on getting the facts of this article correct. It has also recently been improved a lot by the medicine collaboration of the week. It would be nice to get some feedback especially from people with a non-medical background. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. -- Bob 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks pretty good. Nice job! Here's a few comments:
Thanks. :) — RJH 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
and sex
We've recently expanded this article greatly. The writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, so we're putting it up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. Any activity is appreciated, whether it's on content or on technical details. — jdorje ( talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Haven't read thoroughly, but the Impact section overwhelms the Table of content. there is also a one-sentence section in there, which you'llwant to rework: one paragraph sections alone aretypically frowned upon. Also, youmight want to remove the frames in Image:Floydfranklin.jpg and Image:Floyd Tar River Flooding.jpg, but that is a purely personal gripe I have with these types of pictures. Circeus 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Also, for images that needs longer explanation or color charts, you might want to look into the great pseudo frames at Saffron. Circeus 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this page for the last few days (week?) now in order to get it ready for featured article status, I am requesting a peer review in the hopes that the comments will allow me to fix what problems I do not see at this moment before I submit it for featured article candidacy. The Filmaker 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully I've cleared it up as best I can. The Filmaker 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this one for a while, and it draws on all the major sources, ancient and modern, that deal with the subject. Thrasybulus is almost completely forgotten today, which is unfortunate, since he strikes me as a really interesting figure. I'd like to get this to FA, and I'm interested to hear what people think it needs. -- Robth Talk 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the WikiProphet, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. However, I have tried and rewritten the article from scratch, so any errors in it are mine and mine alone. It covers a decisive battle fought by Muhammad in 624. I would love feedback on it, so I can eventually nominate it for a Featured Article. (Currently there are none on Islam) Palm_Dogg 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
An important article, on a topic not known to most people in my part of the world. Should help counter systematic bias. Already well written, but balance seems off for a truly great featured article. I have several suggestion below.
Most of references and quotes seem to be taken from historical source material. Although good quotes, and excellently footnoted, is their independant archaeological evidence for this battle? I assume not, lost in the sands of time, but clarify. I do not doubt the battle took place, but the specific names involved and numbers seem too exact for a historical (not religious) article. Example, are the Muslim graves recorded and countable?
For casualties and prisoners, the article quotes Ibn Ishaq and Al-Bukhari, basically two historical Muslim scholars. Are there surviving written records from the loosing Quraish side? Wendell 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are big comments.
If this becomes a featured article, many-many people with no background in Islam, Mecca, Medina, or Muhammad will read it. Thus consistent terminology is critical. Even after several read thoughs, I was confused by some shifting terms.
Article says At this point, both armies began firing arrows at each other. Muhammad gave orders for the Muslims to employ their ranged weapons, and only engage the Quraish when they advanced. I truely do not understand what the sentence is trying to say, nor the tactics. Both sides were firing arrows (a ranged weapon). Then Muhammad ordered for his troops to emply ranged weapons (which they already were). Does engage in this sentence mean hand-to-hand melee combat? Wendell 04:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the broader issues of content have been adressed at some length above (and this is rather outside of my area of interest); I'll briefly comment on some (minor) technical issues that are likely to come up in a FAC nom:
Hope that helps! — Kirill Lok s hin 04:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've tried to do most of your suggestions. Wendell, does that footnote at the beginning clarify everything? Palm_Dogg 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This looks really good. I anticipate supporting it on FAC after the above points are resolved.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on whether this is ready for FAC. — Johan the Ghost seance 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The article looks good, the popular section is a bit too short to be worth while, does the Cape appear anywhere else, books, journals of notable explorers, film etc?-- nixie 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I belive that the 16mm article needs more infomation then is all ready there and should aim to please people in the industy and lay folk alike. Kylehamilton 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I just decided to get some opinion on this article. the conflict itself was pretty limited so the article probably might not be as lengthy as other war-related ones, but it still looks concise enough. After all I don't find that a FA should only be of a minimum length and brevity is a good thing IMO. Anyway the images are mostly PD and I have ensured that all issues concerning the factual accuracy and neutrality have been properly addressed. I would appreciate any help provided in improving this article and hopefully lead to a FA status. Thanx. Idleguy 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Stbalbach 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The external links in main article body should be transformed into proper notes/references before any FAC process.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of issues with this article.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after: Yeah, he was the first to be shot down, I just wanted you to add his name. IIRC, India's fatalities were somewhere around 1,000. have you crosschecked the figures? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As a quick note, the caption to the main photo appears to be inaccurate - unless it is being used in the direct fire role against Pakistani soldiers at the same altitude (which isn't likely as this would typically represent a miss-use of towed medium artillery), the Indian artillery gun appears to be in a travel configuration, at least while being photographed. -- Nick Dowling 11:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Kemps should be nominated because of the great card game it is! Seriously, i have a load of info and edited the page. I've checked it over myself for mistakes. Albeit the work done to it i think there may be a few kinks to sort out. Kemps is a forgotten card game and i think a good way to 'renew' its existance would be to feature it on wikipedia's main page. Nominaladversary 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The page is hard to comprehend so I tidied up some sections, clarifying meaning based on personal game-playing experience. - Golgotha
It's an important show in the history of British comedy, and it would be nice to get it featured, but I'd first like to see what could be improved. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
AndyZ 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This collaborative article have been listed for peer review to further improve the article after nearly an entire year of contribution by several Singaporean Wikipedians. Need checks on conventions used. Slivester 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
For a battle that essentially determined the size of the United States and Mexico, and led to the United States/Mexican War, this article needs rewriting, and then broken down into sections, such as Events leading to the Texas War of Independance; The Alamo and Goliad; The Long March; The Battle; The Aftermath; (years as an indenpendant country, what annexation by the US provoked in Mexico). Just thoughts. Once again, this is an article that after the millitary coordinator elections, needs attending to. old windy bear 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The series of articles we have on the Mongol Empire are simply not good enough to reflect a power that was the largest continuous land empire in recorded history, and that killed one quarter of the world's population in 50 years. After the Military Coordinator elections, I believe this is one area that needs immediate attention, and rewriting. old windy bear 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, peer review is peer review, so let me give you my opinion: decide whether this article is about a former state or history of a certain country, and format it accordingly. Consider the difference between People's Republic of Poland and History of Poland (1945-1989) (FA). Good examples of the former states are FAs on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Indo-Greek Kingdom. At that moment this article is a cross between history and a state - this needs fixing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The article has improved significantly since its previous review seven months ago. With an aim towards reaching FA quality, several editors have suggested it was time to request additional peer insight. Now that the second season of the show has concluded, the article has stablised, and has no serious content disputes. It is now very well-sourced, more than comparable to other TV series articles which have reached Featured status, e.g.:
As a long-time editor on the article, I'll be presumptive and say that we would welcome any suggestions for further improvements or additions which can be made. -- Leflyman Talk 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be grateful for comments on this page which has had a lot of work done on it, in particular to remove the peacock words which made it sound like a "tourist brochure" and to sort out a consistent use of English and Scientific names for fish, birds etc. A couple of people have suggested it should be put forward for a featured article but I'd really appreciate your comments first. Rod 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful comments. I've expanded the introductory paagraph a bit - do you think this is enough? I've improved the grid ref as suggested & put it in the into. I'm not sure about an ecology section & a leisure use section as surely information on fishing will be relevant in both sections. I will go & find the SSSI sheet & take another look at CVLBirding. Thanks again & keep em coming
Rod
20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to do many of the edits suggested including rearranging the sections etc. I've also asked other with local knowledge to help. I've asked for permission to use a map which shows the differnt areas, bird hides etc. I've also tried to do an info box table thing + map showing the location but it's not very good (my first attempt at this) could anyone help?
Rod
00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, having taken a better look at the page it seems there is very little about the construction, and that paragraphs that are about the construction are actually more about things like the prior archaeological surveys. Should mention things like compulsory purchases and who actually built it (the picture suggests it was Bristol Waterboard Co.). Is the dam concrete, earth or both? Joe D (t) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs a local map to illustrate the areas of the lake, where bird hides, bridges, access points are etc. I have sent requests to the owners of the maps at: [1] and [2] to ask if these could be used but had no response. I don't have the knowledge/software to do this & wondered if anyone else could help? Rod 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC) If this page is going to be Deleted, please move discussions to the Battle of the Thousand Islands talk page. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very good article. I am not familar with warfare in this era. Giving some historical warfare context section would help modern readers, but I do not have a good suggestion and that topic needs its own article. You can see my specific questions Wendell 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The fort would have been in range of cannon fire but the "rifles" (actually muskets) had an effective range of just 100 or 200 meters.
A small fort could take a pounding from cannon and hold out (a) because the cannon were relatively small field pieces being dragged by an army operating in a wilderness area and from small boats and (b) because the wooden palisades of this type of fort could easily be fixed in lulls in the bombardment.
Lafarge Dodger
22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Self-nomination What I believe is a thorough article on a now-defunct institution, the McLaughlin Planetarium in Toronto. Extensive references (done in the new Wikipedia style) plus an annotated image of the planetarium projector model that was used, and "before" and "after" images. ;-) I have covered off all that I can find about this planetarium in my researches. Comments welcome! Captmondo 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am requesting WP:PR for this article not so much in an attempt for FAC, but because I feel it needs more focused NPOV input both from those within and without the topic area (scientific theory and experimentation, especially on controversial subjects). The article seems to be in a stable (though abrogated) state for now, but earnest disputes continue. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not nominating this for a FA per se. I'm just interested if it will hold up to a broader perspective. JaKaL! 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is really detailed for such an obscure topic. I haven't contributed to the article at all, at least content-wise. I just happened to stumble upon it wandering through the Wikipedia. It has references, pictures with acceptable copyright status, and all the requirements to be a Featured Article, with one problem- the article's main (and probably sole) editor, appears to be a German speaker, and therefore the article needs a thorough copy-edit and grammar check, which I unfortunately do not have time to do myself. I am fairly fluent in German, so I can finish translating the picture description pages, which are left in untranslated German, but the English grammar copy-edit is beyond the slim time I have available. Please help! This is an awesome article and could realistically be an FA within a month. RyanGerbil10 22:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a self-nomination. About two weeks ago, a newbie to Wikipedia nominated this for featured article prior to any peer reviews, references, etc., and the article rightly failed. (A bit of that discussion can be found here [ [7]]). As Collins is my favorite singer, I didn't like having that fail mark appear at the top of the talk page and spent the weekend fixing it up, listening to the suggestions made during the original nomination, adding references and deleting questionable material. As such, I would like to submit it for peer review.
The original article had no references and over half the page was a long list of albums, band members, etc. (See here [ [8]] for the article at time of the original nomination). Now that it is clean and referenced, I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article further. As well, I would like another pair of eyes to review it for any spelling/grammar mistakes as well as to ensure NPOV.
Thanks in advance.
-- Ataricodfish 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Fremantle Prison is a world heritage site with an extensive and interesting history. The article has been edited by a prison tour guide currently employed at the prison and has benefited by the many great facts and images donated by this Wikipedia editor with lots of personal knowledge of the site. Many other editors have also contributed their knowledge to bring this article to where it stands today. Any feedback on how we may improve this article in an attempt to gain featured status is welcome. -- Longhair 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
A controversial subject related to Scientology. Following a recent rewrite, the article is looking much healthier and much better referenced, with 80 footnotes (!). I'd like to get it up to Featured Article status in due course. It would be very helpful if anyone could take a look and see whether there are any issues that need to be addressed. -- ChrisO 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Just revised and added to this article. Still have a ways to go; just looking for comments. Thank you. Fergananim 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The bit about how his name should be pronounced doesn't need its own section - I'd use either a sentence in the intro or a footnote for this. I prefer it when years aren't wikified but don't think there's any policy on this. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 15:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've had another look at the article and don't think it's ready for PR; it doesn't meet the "nearly FA standard" criterion at the top of the page. It could do with some sources for "...should be written and pronounced as Rury" and "...believed to..." (both times). At the moment it reads more like a story than an encyclopaedia article: phrases like "...treated so gingerly..." and "not believed to have had any issue" seem a bit weird to me, unless they're common phrases in Ireland in which case by all means keep them in. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is pretty comprehensive I think but I'd like to get another pair of eyes here. Asdfwiki 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My fellow writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, and suggested that it be put up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. I consider it to be extremely complete for an event this long ago, but I'd appreciate any feedback, particularly on issues I might not have noticed. Jdorje 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not a particularly great article, but it has been improving incrementally for some while—getting better organized, more fully referenced, etc. The talk page tells a history of obscure quarrels and opaque debates (which, if you're familiar with Pynchon himself, may seem oddly fitting). Right now, I'd just like to attract a few fresh brains and see if a new perspective or two could be helpful.
Be seeing you. Anville 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather fond of this article about an interesting figure in Indonesian anti-colonial history. I'll be interested in suggestions - any parts that need more (or less) context in order to be understandable? Suggestions for improving the prose? Thanks! CDC (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding this article for the past week or so, and would like comments on it. I'm thinking of nominating it as a FAC sometime in the future. Scott 5114 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is on PR for an unprecedented 3rd time ( 1 | 2). Since the last PR, it has undergone substantial change, not in the content, but in the style of writing and summary. Please give your comments on how it can be imrpoved. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 (review me!) 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice, well written article that I think is headed for FA status. McNeight 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the status of this article? Is it the correct version to review? Wendell 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Animania/archive1
It's been a while since the last peer review, the article has undergone a little change since then, I've added one image (still yet to trawl through the photos taken this year to see if there's anything usable), and I'd like to see this article moved as close to Good Article (at least) as possible. Besides the lack of images, the only main concern was a lack of pages linking in, and unfortunately without spamming I'm not sure how many articles I could validly add a link in.
In particular, I'd like to know which GA criterion the article currently passes, and which it fails (I appreciate that there's a lack of reliable sources, although I wouldn't mind being told where I might look for more). Confusing Manifestation 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is already pretty good, but it has no references, and also needs some cleanup and a few redlinks fixed/removed. -- Janke | Talk 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Self-nom, at the urging of others. Ultimate plan is to head for Wikipedia:Featured list status, but could do with some input before I head thatwaywards. The Tom 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm refiling a peer review for this article. We started a sort of cleanup drive a few months ago in order to improve it, and the article has really come a long way. Many editors have done a lot of work on it. I'd like some response to how well the article shapes up, and what needs to be fixed (I'm already looking into the {{ fact}} parts). Thanks. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the poem that is used current by Mexico as their national anthem. This was a fairly decent article, but I added some things to it, added recordings, and trimmed the lyrics down. However, I do ask that before I sent this to FAC, if the following can be checked:
There was a very nice annon who did a grammar check on the article, so the prose looks good, IMHO. Any other suggestions are welcome. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 07:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a few external links (one of which is dead) in the text that should be converted to footnotes. Looks good, though. Gflores Talk 05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of this article was written by me and M.C. Brown Shoes. I'd like to get some input about what could be improved in the article, and whether it is comprehensible for someone not as familiar with the band. I guess it is too short to become FA (the band only was around for 9 nine months really), but I'd still like to get this article as good as possible, so pretty much any suggestion is welcome. This article was previously peer reviewed ( archived here) in September 2005. -- Fritz Saalfeld ( Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This article was a WP:FAID winner last week, and has been improved. I'm planning to nominate it for FA status. Please comment. Conscious 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Also this article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631
I cannot find it right now, but I remember several books and newspapers printed before 1970. In 1970 was that the people begin to talk about Brazil as tri-champion and the previous tetra-championship of Uruguay (1924,1928,1930 & 1950) was forgotten. Also the same article http://ezinearticles .com/?FIFA-World-Cup---A-History-1930-to-1958&id=234631 applies
You're right, JoaoRicardo. Some of these statements should be supported by references, the rest just removed. Speaking about incidents, do you mean something like the Hand of God goal? Conscious 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
By the same numbering:
Thank you for your help with an outside view, JoaoRicardo, especially as you say you "can't stand sports". (That doesn't mean we're finished.) Conscious 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel like an image should be added in the lead. Also, the sections seem out of place. The results table seems out of place. I think it'd be better if all the article text (media coverage, selection of hosts) be higher up and then the results table and records. Something like that. Gflores Talk 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Before FAC, it might be better to have a good editor copyedit this once again to polish the language.
>> In the Olympic games of 1924 and 1928, Uruguay won the football gold medal, in the first intercontinental football competitions[1]. These victories led the FIFA to choose Uruguay as the home of the first FIFA sanctioned World Cup.
I believe another reason was that Uruguay was celebrating the centenary of their independance at the time. Can you check whether your sources consider it important enough to be worth a mention ?
>> The World Cup is now a truly global event, with as many as 197 nations entering qualification for the 2006 edition.
197 nations is mentioned twice in the article. The repeat may be avoided. Tintin Talk 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an article for a little-known disorder that until the Internet came along, it was difficult to even find information about. I'm concerned about proper referencing and linking to sources, and the overrall organizational layout of the article. I've tried to cover all areas thoroughly, and to check spelling and grammar, but would appreciate a review of the writing in general. MamaGeek Joy 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article needs lots of help. At first glance, it reads like it was written by people not very clear about the difference between a disease and a clinical manifestation or presenting complaint, nor easily able to distinguish hypotonia itself from other frequently associated neurological problems. There are a few glaring problems:
You might post a request for content help among the editors who would consider this an ordinary and well-known topic with an extensive knowledge base and research literature going back a century (rather than a "little-known disorder until the internet"-- this surprised me-- whole books on the topic were written before the internet was imagined). I tried to clear up some confusions in the early paragraphs but we have a number of editors with real neurological expertise at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine. alteripse 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Resubmission. First peer review request, failed FAC, to-do list at Talk:Bjørnøya. The points from FAC have mostly been adressed, but the article should get some copyediting before it can be resubmitted to FAC. Thanks. Kosebamse 08:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks again, Kosebamse 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Article about a top division football (soccer) club from England. I've been making gradual improvements to this article for about as long as I've been wikiing, and would appreciate any comments, particularly from non-football fans. It could probably do with a few fresh pairs of eyeballs for copyediting too. For comparison, Arsenal F.C. and IFK Göteborg are FAs about football clubs. I realise the article could do with a photo of the team in action, and I'm looking into it. Oldelpaso 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Generally, it's good. A few things:
Intro:I'd expand this to three paragraphs and have some more on the club's history here. The "known for their loyalty and good humour bit" looks like it could do with a source, but then my bias on this subject is well known :-)
History: It looks better with the subsections, but if you're thinking of putting this onto FAC I'd merge the first two as the people on there like a good whinge about articles with too many subsections. You'll get similar complaints about the Colours and badge section as well, so if you can find a way to expand or merge it it might be worth doing so. The 1999-present section could be better: I don't see why a 9th place finish and an own goal against QPR need mentioning - there must be something more notable to write about? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Oldelpaso, who responded to the American football peer review, has asked me to take a look at this article. I have to point out that when it comes to soccer articles, I don't have the perspective of a typical American. I understand phrases like "four points clear at the top of the table" because I lived in Europe and have read about European soccer on Wikipedia. However, that phrase would not make sense to most Americans. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, because this is not a "basic-level" article like American football should be. There is one Anglicism I might change, though: in the U.S., "silverware" means what you call "cultery." It looks a little funny to see it used to mean "trophies."
I think the article is pretty solid. I have touched up the grammar a bit. I would put the second sentence in the past simple tense. Also, the sentence that begins with "In the 1950s, a City team..." is grammatically confusing. On the plus side, I love the phrase "despite its melancholic theme is belted out with gusto as though it were a heroic anthem."
The last paragraph in the "1999 to present" section is probably misplaced, as it discusses pre-1999 events. I also agree that there should be more info on the rivalry with "Man U." I know, for example, that in Glasgow, soccer allegiances often correspond to religion. Do certain types of people support each of the Manchester teams?
Only two questions came to me in reading the article:
Mwalcoff 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Qwghlm and CTOAGN - I've split the History to History of Manchester City F.C., I perhaps now need to condense it some more in the main article, and rewrite 1999-present. I've not found much to expand the colours and crest section yet, though I've not yet had the opportunity to go to the library. Mwalcoff - I've made changes for all the points you raised. Oldelpaso 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I just wrote an article about this medicine, and I'm really not sure what to do next. Are there any other sections I should write or areas that need expansion? Also, I'd appreciate some non-medical reviewers to comment on its accesibility to lay people. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The article reads well but in general "feels" a bit short. Unfortunately I'm not the person to ask about "layperson readability" but a general guideline is to define obscure terminology in the article itself. I'll get around at some point in doing a high-res structure for the article. The current one looks a bit blurry, IMO. Good luck! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This template was created to bring the two series together as they crossed over. Before using it on any page of either of those two series, a review would help determine if the work is good or not.
Lady Aleena | Talk 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Several editors recommended that this page undergo a peer review before being considered as a featured article. Other than footnotes and links within the body text, there are likely other issues with this page that have escaped the attentions of the authors. McPhail 14:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There was a pretty low-traffic peer review of this article before, Wikipedia:Peer review/3D Monster Maze/archive1. Thereafter, it had went through a FAC which failed, and a lot of modifications have been done to address the concerns raised. In the current state, one of the original FAC objectors is happy about the article enough to say it has "much potential" on the FAC if resubmitted again. Since there are still some issues I am unsure of (note also that I am not a native English speaker), I would be happy to have your help. Please be sure to read the article talk page, not just the article itself, before commenting/helping. -- BACbKA 10:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
Thanks again! -- BACbKA 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Maclean,
thank you very much for your edits. The language sounds much more encyclopedic following your edits. While you suggest to revert whatever I disagree with, I would like to hear your opinion on the points I had slight reservations about. Sorry for not answering right away, I have been a bit busy outside wikipedia last week.
Also, could you please look at the talk page? I would especially like a native speaker's opinion on the 2nd-person language issue raised there.
Thank you very much again for your help, BACbKA 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on how to improve this article, in particular to enhance the formating of the pictures, if there is too much or too little information in any of the sections and if anyone has any suggestion for further pictures to be included (particularly for the Between the Wars section) Thank you Nickhk 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Nickhk
I can confirm Brig AG Mac Percival was his son, having served with him. The Brevet title has me confused. I understood it was given to a select band of Lt Cols who had been marked out for future accelerated promotion.
This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past ( User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!
Most recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive4 bob rulz 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
From the brief look I took:
Is there still something missing from the article? -- Easyas12c 22:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Liberatore( T) 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is a former collaboration of the week and has been improved tremendously from its original state. My fellow contributors and I would like suggestions on any further work needed before nominating it to become a featured article. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. Kafziel 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Date | Invasion |
---|---|
722 BCE | Assyrian invasion of the Kingdom of Israel |
Hammurabi, during the course of conquering much of what is now known as the Middle East, defeated the Kingdom of Israel and sent its inhabitants into exile. (Van De Mieroop, 2005) This presaged future Greek and Roman conquest and, later, the Crusades. To this day, the region remains contested. |
I went through this process because it was suggest to me, however, I'm looking more for a peer review than a possible nomination, although if it was nominated that would be great as well. Nonetheless, I want to politely ask if those that have time can review the article and correct any grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as accuracy. Thank you for your time; I truly appreciate it. JonCatalan 03:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hope that helps. Keep up the great work! Captmondo 16:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Response:' Yes, you are correct, and I will link to Wolfram von Richthofen's article immediately, as well as provide the full name. As for the reference to Megargee, I should probably just reword the entire sentence and take out the reference to his name. As for the images, you are absolutely correct, and I'll have to work that out. As for anything online, a lot of links refer either to the Third Battle of Kharkov, or have the two mixed up - that board game is an example. It explains the Second Battle of Kharkov as what is normally regarded as the third (Manstein's recapture of the city in 1943). As for the rest, I'll get to work immediately, and I really appreciate it. Thank you for helping me out! JonCatalan 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Love the article and the subject. Wish I knew more and could help write not edit (nit-pick). These are just comments. Wendell 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Wiki stuff
Big comments:
Sentence by sentence breakdowns.
Response: I linked to the winter counteroffensive, as suggested. Any wiki-links to the local offensives will have to come later, when I have more times to search around for them. The rasputitsa link fixed, and Stalingrad is considered part of Operation Blue, but in all actuality Operation Blue did not envision an investment of Stalingrad under weeks after the operation began. The only reason they link to the same article is because there is discussion on the merging of the two, and most historians consider Stalingrad as Blue because it was, without a doubt, the largest sector of the offensive. As for the sentence in question, I fixed it up a bit because referencing to a multitude of books, at least IMHO, would not be effective, so I offered some justification. As for pictures, frankly, I don't have enough pictures; the two I have relevent to the battle I fear I will have to take off and ask them to get deleted, because there will be copyright issues; so the faster those pictures are replaced the better; unless, I'm wrong. There aren't many photographs of the battle that are open, and I so the only thing I can do is put up images of slightly relevent topics, although they were not directly in Kharkov at the time...unless, there's a better idea, which there most likely is.
Now, for the big comments. An encirclement would certainly be a welcomed thought for the Soviets, but the pincering of an area doesn't necessarilly imply that the original expected outcome was a full fledge encirclement, although many times it does end as such. But taking an enemy on on both flanks is a sound idea, as opposed to only one, where the enemy can simply move reinforces from the opposite location; in other words, it's an alternate to hitting piecemeal, IMO. As for the casualties, I don't know if comparison to the men originally introduced into the battle would help the issue; Beevor has been accused of POV in his books, at least where anti-communism is concerned, while Glantz is reknown for his use of Soviet archives, although there are a lot who doubt his figures as well - unfortunately, them two are the only sources I have that have pin pointed casualties enough to be of any service; although I certainly do have other sources, they don't go into too much depth. Finally, the German counter-attack on the 17th did introduce a final German push into the Izium salient, which would eventually open the path for Operation Blue; undoubtfully, the loss of so much personnel in May was a major reason why the Germans found it so easy to rip through the Soviet frontlines upong the launching of Operation Blue, and that's what I tried to imply. As for organizing the artile a bit better, I'll work on that - give me the weekend to finish it all up.
Now, for the sentence by sentence breakdown; I don't know where the author got those numbers. According to The German Army, by Matthew Cooper, and most other sources I have, the Germans claimed around 100,000 dead by the end of 1941, which seems different from the 250,000 claimed by the artile at Smolensk. Although not all of those were implied dead - rather casualties - you could only assume that at least 1/3 of those were deaths, which certainly seems to high. As far as I'm concerned Smolensk was a debacle for the Red Army, where they faced the crushing of their defense of Moscow. In fact, it's argued by more than one author that Moscow would have fallen had the Germans not stopped and instead sent their strength north and south [to Leningrad and Kiev, respectively]. I would certainly not doubt that strength of Soviet resistance, but I don't think the fact that they had suffered a major defeat can ever be forgotten. Nonetheless, I will change the wording a bit.
Well yes, in retrospect it is obvious that the Soviets were doomed. The Russians thought that the major offensive would occur against Moscow, as opposed to Stalingrad or the Caucasus, and so naming the battle as a local counteroffensive for the Soviets and a major effort for the Germans is not really a POV issue, as far as I see. It's just different perspective from two different sides; I don't think the Soviets ever envisioned that the 6th Army would be so reinforced. Nor did Timoshenko, as outlined by the article, even know about Operation Frederikus, which was ironically, the German operation to destroy the very salient he attacked out of. In other words, the Germans were prepared to strike for an opening blow against the Soviets, which would straighten the front for the eventual launching of Blue; the Soviets did not see their operation as the preamble of what would lead into a major summer offensive, AFAIK.
German defenses were knocked out; sorry for that terrible mistake. Was is now changed to were.
This next sentence quoted refers to the fighting. As far as written sources put it, the German resistance was brutal, as opposed to Soviet resistance on the 17th of May. I can reword the sentence and attribute less POV, which is what I think you're implying. Well actually, now that I look at it, it seems you took it out of context. The "inched foward" refers to Soviet movement of second echelon troops, not to offensive movements. In fact, this is what the entire quote should be, "The fighting was so fierce that the Soviets inched forward their second echelon formations, preparing to throw them into combat as well. Fighting was particularly atrocious near the Russian village of Nepokrytaia, where the Germans launched three local counterattacks. By day's end the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers." I don't see any POV issues over the penetration ranges; it simply states the greatest penetration of Soviet forces; whether the penetration was good or bad can be considered irrelevent; what is relevent is that they has suffered so many casualties, and were facing so much resistance, that they thought the slow movement of their reserves was necessary.
For the next sentence, I think it was use of two sources, which may use different names. I'll have to take tomorrow after class, and this weekend, to work around and edit that, as well as reordering the sequence of battle, and perhaps making more subsections for the battle.
For the next sentence, "The first 72 hours saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed," is the topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph explains the sequence of battle for the next 72 hours. The counter-attacks stopped refer to the localized counter-attacks, which I guess I need to establish, although I assumed that it would be understood since the sentence comes right after the sentence which explains the localized counter-attacks. But, I'll change it.
For point #5, I changed the sentence around a bit. I admit, I re-read it and was confused myself. I think I meant the localized-offensives and upon rereading it that's what makes the most sence, so I reworded it a bit to make more sense, although I figure that it'll make even more sense once I finish any reorganization of the article. Point #6 I think deals with the same, so I hope that answered that question as well. As for point #7 I think I answered that before. I said the greatest Soviet advance was 10kms deep, and then this was later illustrated as a spectacular gain,; "By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains", although now that I read it, even that's confusing...so I just reworded that as well.
And finally, point #8. Yes, the Russian forces sorrounded refer to Russian forces that had partaken in the offensive and were in the salient at that time. I guess I have to underscore that as well.
So, you can't begin to believe how much this criticism helped, and by the end of this weekend I hope to have worked out the major problems outlined by your review. If anybody has any information on pictures, I would love to hear it. But, if I can ask that all further review can be held until I finish with the reorganization to avoid flooding this with commentary while I work on the article. I'll leave a message here when I'm finished. Again, thank you a lot!
- JonCatalan 00:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I corrected several links for Russian generals, corrected Ewald von Kleist's name and link. The action has been broken into several subsections. I tried to use my judgement as to where the action changed from one side to another. I rather like how it's turned out. Cheers, Guapovia 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This has come on quite well in the 7 months since the last peer review and my last edit. What do you think - should I take it to FAC? The usual "inline reference" merchants will have a field day, I suppose: anything else? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Some comments and questions. Overall a good article. I realize that not every point can be address or expanded, some of these topics may be out of scope or require data that simply does not exist. Wendell 19:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Requests for article clarity:
Potential topics for a Featured Article:
Article expansion suggestions:
Dunno, seems a bit overkill, all that. If the article becomes that extensive, some of it should be broken into separate articles, no? Guapovia 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well-sourced article that I've worked a lot on over the last several months; considering FAC and placing on peer review to see where it needs improvement as part of that process. AUTiger ʃ talk/ work 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks again. AUTiger ʃ talk/ work 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This article was recently peer reviewed by the CVG project. I feel that this article has shown some improvement over the past month, but it could still use some work. I would like to know what needs to be fixed, expanded, improved, deleted, edited, and so on. I am hoping that us editors can get this article featured in the not-so-distant future. Anything and everything would be appreciated. Deckiller 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales has requested that we improve this article in return for the good will of the congressman's staff posting his official bio to the talk page instead of editing the article directly. I spent a few hours on it, and I've taken it as far as I can. -- James S. 10:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has come a long way and has a lot of detail on all past series of Australian Big Brother. I'm submitting it for peer review in an effort to fill the gaps on content and seek any other advice and suggestions on overall article appearance. Thanks. -- Longhair 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you think this needs anything else besides inline references to be ready for FAC?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
So here's the deal: I had this requested for a peer review before, the article looks pretty good - aside from the need for citations. This really is a request, but please consider this a recruitment as well! Are you good with military history? Please help edit - I have had some external factors inhibiting me from editing that article like I should have! Please see the first archive here. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please peer review this article. It was nominated for FA but many users suggest it be peer reviewed before it is nominated for FA. So please peer review this article as it seems to have many problems. Thank you Street walker 08:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to clean this article up as much as I can, but I really think that it could use some more work. A plot overview should be added, as well as a few other things. Add and correct as much as you can to make this a good article. ( Ibaranoff24 04:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
This article has come a long way since I first got at it and I feel that I've worked on it to the point where need help seeing its faults and how it can be improved. I would like this to eventually become Featured. A few more pictures would be nice. ==Impact== is not yet satisfactory either. Should there be a list of photographs taken by him? POV is also a concern. How does it read? The article's just not getting enough traffic (what else should link to it?). This needs more eyes. --
Rmrfstar
00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this ready for FAC? -- Rmrfstar 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the second Adelaide suburb to be edited to such a standard. Help would be appreciated through copyediting, link suggestion and general feedback. Examples of earlier suburb featured articles: Waterfall Gully, South Australia (nominated and worked on by myself) and Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory.
Thankyou. - G t 05:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Very detailed article and of course would like to further improve it. -- Wikipedical 07:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've written most of this article, with the intention of getting it up to featured article level. I'd like an idea of how far it still has to go & what'd be needed. AllanHainey 12:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see this become a featured article. I have an inkling it is getting close. What needs to be done to get it all the way? Run! 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks guys :) Run! 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Righto. Well it wasn't hard finding more things to say about the Weapons, so that section is much more comprehensive now. There's now an audio section which might need expanding, though I can't find a lot to say about the sound really. I know a friend who's obsessed with Worms:DC so I shall extract some information about that from him :). I'm plodding on with the inline citations, so there'll be more to come. I'm researching Hogs of War so that I can say something about that (fortunately, there's a wiki article on it). And I'm currently trying to get in contact with Team17 about their sales statistics for Worms. There was nothing on the site, but there might be soon. Run! 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is an understatement to say that this article is poorly written: filled with gramatical errors, uncited material and run-on sentences. But the subject matter is treated atrociously, and the examples very poorly, if at all, give any elucidation to the topic. There is almost nothing at all to distinguish it from Historical revisionism. I have removed some material, as you can see on the article's talk page, but this article makes a lot of accusations, and they need to be checked for validity. There may be a legitimate topic here (that's not my opinion), but this article is a rant that leaves a reader much more confused than when they went in. -- DanielCD 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
My introductory paragraph here may have been a little exaggerated, as it often can seem when one comes to an article that needs work and has people in conflict. I will try some other methods to try to get a little fresh air into it though. Thanks. -- DanielCD 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this FA status? -- Dangherous 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just completely rewritten and expanded the article based on the newly published biography by James Hansen. Looking for some more outside input as to where the article goes into too much depth or covers details that are obscure and unneeded in a Wikipedia biography. I haven't quite finished the footnoting and still want to cover the world tour he went on just after Apollo 11. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Imporant 20th century evolutionary biologist, is the article understandable for non scientists?-- nixie 23:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has improved a lot in the last month, most notably with the inclusion of a lot of relevant images, very detailed references for almost all the facts quoted, and standard sections as per country pages. The language has also been NPOVized to a great extent. So, I think we can move this into FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear other people's opninions in avenues for improvement. Thanks. -- Ragib 05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The cultural section needs a lot of work. Some of the prose is South Asian English, not English English, and some of the sentences are clumsy. Frex, "Contemporary Bangladesh keeps producing a substantial amount of litearture of all forms." That makes literature sound like the jute harvest. It would be better to say something about the number of newspapers, magazines, and books published, literacy, readership, and perhaps to mention the names of some well-known contemporary writers. Is there an article on Bengali literature?
The history section contains a lurid sentence which runs something like "Rape of Bangladesh was one of the worst genoicides in history, as bad as the genoicide in Cambodia" and there's a link to an emotional website. It was horrible, inexcusable, vile ... I hadn't realized that it was so terrible ... and I shudder to think that the perpetrators are still living at their ease. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cambodia, where Pol Pot managed to kill 25% of the population. The West Pakistanis didn't manage that in Bangladesh. Now perhaps "bad" is measured by population numbers, but that's a clumsy scale to use ... wiping out 100% of an Amazon tribe of 1000 people would seem "less bad" than killing 2000 people out of a population of 10,000,000. Perhaps you should leave out the judgements about more or less bad and just present the facts ... that's horrifying enough.
I'm sure that there are more nits to pick, but those were the biggest problems I saw. Zora 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll review in detail after the article is summarised and copyedited. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Just something I noticed right away were three links in the middle of the history section that need to be converted into references or something. Looking at the page in the printable version makes the section look ugly with the URLs present in the paragraph as opposed to at the bottom like the references. Pepsidrinka 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A page representing the highest wiki-tradition, a truly encyclopedic page, The page has all the ingredients to migrate to the status of a featured page. It is really heartening to note that as of now the page has no redlinks, as such the user shall have the luxury to dig deep into the contents covered in this page. I am re- reading the page very carefully, and shall surely come back with more comments, if required. -- Bhadani 08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
) and –
need to be used consistently. This looks great — good luck.
Saravask
23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Hi - I've just created "BangladeshTopics." Please help to customize and improve it. Rama's Arrow 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
How is the article right now? I've commented in bold replies to most of the points raised above, so please take a look and let me know. Thanks. -- Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made some major edits to the page including copyediting. A few red links are introduced, it should be made blue, 1 citation needed, and the highest point mentioned. I've removed the =Education= section as per the Wikiproject countries which does not list it. I've also merged =sports= under culture and pruned away victories over Pakistan etc. The only thing remaining is the =History= section. Up till this point in 1966, its president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was jailed and in 1969 was released after unprecedented popular uprising. the section is well summarised, but after that it becomes too detailed. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (citation and highest point provided-- ppm 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC))
I am resending this article for peer review as it has greatly improved since the start of the last peer review and I would like more comments on how this article could be improved. Tarret 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The topic is not very broad and diverse, but I am hoping to expand on it. Any suggestions, comments? — Eternal Equinox | talk 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure how useful any of these are, but some thoughts, at least. -- Telsa ( (t) (c)) 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Self Nomination. I think that this article is very comprehensive and well written. The majority is a translation from the German featured article and I have added inline citations. If anyone has any suggestions about how to improve this article, I would be obliged to improve it. Trebor27trebor 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking for ideas for improvement and suggestions about what needs smoothing out. I know we're missing data, but do you notice anything besides that? jengod 04:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
A fairly expansive article on a prominent Cold War icon. Would appreciate feedback on improving it to FA quality. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm nominating Canada for a peer review. It's a fairly good article, also noted by the good article status which it has received. I wanted to expand on it, but I decided the best way to expand would be to first find out what the thoughts of other Wikipedians are. Not just for myself, but for others so that we can collaborate and get it to FA status. I was using the United States article as a comparison, and one MAJOR section I noticed was Economy. To sum up, the section finishes before it starts. Another rather strange section is History, and Quebec sovereignty movement within it in particular. The former seems a bit brief, while the latter looks out of place.
There are definitely other areas to be improved or added, and that's where you peer reviewers come in. It's a pretty good article thus far. It's already reached FA on a couple of international Wikis, so why not in the English version?
So what do you think? how can we improve this article? ♠ SG →Talk 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I just got the main article on Michigan State University featured. I would now like to get this daughter article in shape to be a Featured Article. Please let me know what you think. — Lovelac7 07:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article is written to quite a good standard, but was wondering if there is anyway it can be expanded. Some areas may also need clarification, but I am not sure which sections or to what degree. This page is also subject to vandalism due to its slightly controversial nature, and any suggestions on how to minimise that aspect, if it can be minimised, would be appreciated. Allthesestars 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
When I first came to this page I was disappointed, so I rewrote it from scratch and I've got it to this state so far. I know the Gameplay section is woeful and needs much improvement - but what else can be added? Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks! — Wackymacs 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
More to come later :) Lord ViD 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This article has expanded and grown a lot since I first joined Wikipedia, but it requires focus so that it could get to the the quality exhibited by University of Michigan and Michigan State University. I would like to see this too become a featured article. R'son-W 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the editors of this article have worked hard on it. I'm looking for opinions from other Wikipedia editors and readers. Do you think it is fac quality? If not, what can be done to improve its quality? Anything else you might be interested in reading about the Eurasian race, but is not mentioned in the article? User:Carie 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Where it was disputed that Shannon Elsabeth and Paula Abdul were not Eurasian, THIS IS FALSE! Middle easterners ARE Asians as well. Anyone disagreeing this can also exclude people of mixed European and Indian descent. Most Northern Indians are Caucasoid in race and the mixed offspring of them and a European is quite distinct from a mixed white and East Asian. `Asian' in society in the US often refers to East Asian. If you include Indians, you've got to include Middle-Easterners. Paul 58.164.88.20 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a former featured article. It was removed because. It has received a bit of work lately. It seems to me most reasons for removal have been removed. I'm not sure if it's a featured article candidate like this but the topic is important enough ;-) to make it one. So some comments please. Some of the work was done by myself so I suppose this is a self-nomination. Piet 13:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Legendary engineer, I've started to 'reference' everything with the aim of getting it featured soon, comments very much appreciated before I back-reference the lot and submit for FAC. Thanks. -- PopUpPirate 00:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Part of the efforts made towards consolidating the Bangalore article, thereby making it more readable was to ultimately push the article for Featured Article nomination. Peer Reviews are deemed essential in channelling feedback and contributions from other Wikipedia contributors. Overall, I think the article is as concise as it could get without running into the risk of not painting an accurate portrait of the city. Some of the main areas I think that still need improvement are citations and references — many statistical and factual assertions within the article do not have in-line citations, as of yet. Spellcheck and grammatical errors need to be addressed, I feel. Rewording may also be required for some sections of the article where a logical flow of ideas around a central theme dosen't appear to be occuring. Please review Talk:Bangalore ("To-do List") for a list of issues that have been addressed and for any open issues.
Many of the previously over-expanded sections that made for uninteresting reading (History, Economics, Culture) have been moved to separate, independent articles. I invite you to please provide your thoughts and insight on improving the quality of this article, as we move towards pushing the article for a Featured Article nomination. Thanks. AreJay 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
(1) The lead should be more circumspect - brief history, geography, culture and economics. The present is not good enough, and should not be broken down into 2-3 lines.
(2) Paras within sections are too frequent. Need to have larger paras to embody consistency and fluency.
(3) check out Malwa, Geography of India and Chennai peer reviews for some subtle but good tips on India-geography FAs.
Aside from this, its a beautiful piece of work. All the best! Rama's Arrow 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the comments already made, these are a few of my observations. I believe that an article should be interesting apart from being comprehensive. I think this article can be improved further to reflect that. The role of Mysore Kingdom in the industrialisation of Bangalore, esp. the role of Mokshagundam Visvesvarayya and Mirza Ismail need to be touched upon. Also, a reading of the history section gives the wrong impression that Bangalore was ruled by Britain alone, and not along with Mysore kingdom. This needs to be addressed. Facts should be presented in a more interesting manner. e. g. Instead of saying Wipro and Infy, 2 of the top 3 IT firms are headquartered in B'lore, it cd be stated that out of the top 10 IT firms , X no. have offices in Bangalore (or) more than 40% of World's SEI-CMM level 5 companies are in Bangalore etc. - I am just giving an example, the actual no.s may be somewhat different. Also, I believe the largest no. of engineering colleges were in Coimbatore. After the acts of Andhra Pradesh government in 1999-2001, maximum no. of engineering colleges are believed to be in Hyderabad-Secunderabad. I think we would need to quote from references like "Network City: Planning the Information Society in Bangalore – James Heitzman; Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2004, pp.368, Price: Rs.795/- (Hardbound)" to address WP:V concerns. Also, institutes of national eminence such as the ISEC and the fact that many MNC subsidiaries are located in Bangalore needs prominent mention. Comparisons between Bangalore's cosmopolitanism vis-a-vis rest of Karnataka's rural economy, thus leading to tensions between urban bureaucracy and rural polity need at least a passing mention. Interesting work, overall, I would say. -- Gurubrahma 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Great work Arejay! Some tips/notes:
Be careful when you upload images from flickr. Image:Bangalore Mosque.jpg is tagged as {{ cc-by-2.5}}, but the source shows the license as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0, which is a non-free license.
It would also be great, if you can upload the images directly to commons.
But please do not add URL's directly to the paras.
More or less, its good, except for some copy-editing & rechecking of facts/references. -- Pamri • Talk 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, AreJay, the article looks really good to me! I especially like the layout and picture choice in the economics section. Just a few suggestions, which I think a few other people may have already touched on.
I hope the article gets featured soon! Mgummess 04:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read through the page again, and I must say I like all the improvements. The article is much easier to read and keeps my interest throughout. I only have two suggestions for minor edits.
Once again, these are just incredibly picky suggestions for minor edits. Overall, I think the article flows very smoothly now and sounds great. It has a great chance of making featured in my opinion. Mgummess 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The editors of this recently created article are requesting peer review to ensure the article meets WP:MOS. The information provided in the article is well referenced we believe and our hope is to have the article become a Wikipedia:Featured article in the near future. Any and all suggestions to help us make this article better are welcome.-- MONGO 10:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-- maclean25 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have worked hard on this article (with others of course) to get it to its current standard. I would appreciate the views of a wider audience regarding its quality, deficiencies and suitability for FAC. Thank you Mark83 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
* 1 History o 1.1 Formation * 2 Products o 2.1 Air o 2.2 Land o 2.3 Sea * 3 Recent Events (ie Major events since merger) + 1.3.1 Eurosystems o 1.2 Merger undertakings * 3 Corporate Information o 3.1 Major events since merger o 3.2 Future of Airbus shareholding o 3.3 Bribery allegations o 3.4 Financial information o 3.5 Corporate governance o 3.6 Organisation o 3.7 Joint ventures etc. * 4 See also * 5 References * 6 External links
Which would put the focus back on what the company does rather than its politics, leaving room for expansion of what BAE actually does. Would love it as Featured one day soon. -- PopUpPirate 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article a lot recently, adding references and removing POV. I also wrote the entire Pepsi section of this article. I am trying to get this to featured status, so any feedback would be excellent. — Wackymacs 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This artcile has been granted Good Article status and seems to meet the vast majority of criteria to become a featured artcile. But it would be useful to have some input concerning the section on objections, the length, struture of the artcile or other matters.-- Lacatosias 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to make all the changes recommended below by ApolloBoy. I have also taken new photos which can be uploaded to the "year to year changes" as was recommended by Maclean25. Please continue offering advice on how to improve this article Evenprime 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is just about ready to become featured in my openion, and peer reviewing it to point out the flaws will just edge it closer! -- Karrmann
Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1
This article has changed very significantly since the last peer review. It was delisted as a GA, had a major overhaul, and was then promoted again. It has been assessed as an A-class article. I am hoping to get the article to Featured Article status if possible. Any comments would be most welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The technical detail in this article is fabulous, but the popular impact is grossly understated. The news coverage and public reaction around the world was enormously exaggerated relative to the number of lives lost and the amounts of money involved. Public awareness of the Challenger disaster ranks at least as high as the Chernobyl meltdown and much higher than the Bhopal disaster, which caused far more fatalitites and costs. Challenger has become a reference point in debates about engineering safety, and is discussed in detail in many university engineering programmes and safety training in large companies. It has spawned dozens of books, documentaries, and training videos. This impact on the popular consciousness merits discussion.-- Yannick 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just started reading this, but will do more later. A few little things that the automated review probably already caught (I fixed a few in one section but now have to go):
-- Will.i.am 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave this article a more thorough read today. Here's some quick comments, but feel free to ignore them if they're too annoying. I also added a few examples of tiny grammar changes that may help you in copy-editing:
That was all I found for now, this is a really nice article! Good luck with it!-- Will.i.am 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has recently been at WP:FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur for the super-duper extended nom) and had a peer review (that I delisted pretty sharpish - I was impatient, what can I say?). Since the FACs, it has had a major rewrite ( [19]) and I feel that it's really ready to be FAC now. I even got a few opinions from IRC users who know nothing about it and acted upon their comments. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
More references would also be good, especially in the anime section; links to the episode page on Serebii.net would look great. I'll try doing that myself soon (at least, when I don't have a midterm exam in two hours!)
Also, I know this may be original research, but perhaps a section on how useful Bulbasaur can be in battle (at least, when it evolves into Venusaur). Just how it is immune to Toxic and Leech Seed, is resistant to a good number of types, and has high defense status (perhaps calling it a "Tank"). Personally I would love to see this article be FAC! While I'm not that into Pokemon anymore, I still love Bulbasaur a lot. But I know there are a lot of bashers out there that might not let that happen. This weekend, if I have some time, I'll try to improve this article myself and see what can happen! Good luck. --TheWindshield 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it is a fine article, the day after publication. It may be early, but I am looking to FAC soon. Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This article was peer reviewed in February 2006 (see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Enceladus (moon)/archive1). A number of the requests were answered and since then I have worked to bring the article further into compliance with the standards for a Featured Article. In addition recent results have further helped in filling the article out.
I would like to submit this article as a featured article, however I thought it was wise to have this article go through one more peer review, particularly after these recent major edits, before submitting. So suggestions for work needed to get this article to Featured Article status will be greatly appreciated.
There are two major issues that I would like to acknowledge. First, the article lead does not yet conform to WP:LEAD. Currently, the article lead is one paragraph in length when it should be 3-4. Second, I am a little lost in how best to cite and reference this article. I have both a notes section, containing the numbered citations from the article using the the <ref> element as well a References section, where full citations for journal articles and books used are listed. This does give the appearance that the references are being given twice in these two different sections, Notes and References. This was done after reading the comments of several FACs that failed because the inline citations looked cludgy after including the full citations inline using templates. So the citations inline, displayed in the notes section, are in shortened, Science-journal style, whereas in the references section, full citations using the Cite Journal and Cite Book templates. This reduces the cludge of templated inline citations, but increases article length. So advice on how citations and references should be arranged would be appreciated. -- Volcanopele 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to place my userpage (admittidly not an article) on Peer Review so that it all its bugs can be removed. I would like to see if people think loading times are OK, if the design is OK or if it would put people off editing my userpage, and if it looks good.
Thanks for your time! --
Fir0002
21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
eeek! Looks bad on 800x600. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The article has been written by many including myself over a long period of time. Most importantly, the first sections, Conception (Inspirations and Script) and Casting (Background) as well as the Music section lack references big time. This is because most of the information was noted from interviews and other material from the special edition DVD. So how does one go about to reference that form of media? I can go and search the internet for some sources, but I doubt I would find them all. So is it possible to use a DVD/DVD material/DVD booklet as a reference, if so, how?
Thats the main issue at the moment, but if any could check for things like bias, style etc that would be great. Any help/comment/suggestions would be great. Thanks Forever young 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is a rather important topic to me, and I've been working on it for a period of several months, however I'm not sure where to go from here other than finding a few more good references and citations. At this point, it needs some new sets of eyes, particularly those not terribly familiar with the topic. Is it understandable to the layman? Does it make sense? Do you have any questions unanswered after reading it? Thanks! Scott Ritchie 06:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Myself and a number of other people (mostly, if not entierly, the other people) have been working to make Red vs Blue a featured article. We beleive that the article is currently ready for a peer review, the next step towards nominating it for a featured article, and would appreciate your imput. Thank you. Dr. B 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
On behalf of User:Dark Kubrick, who asked me to help him write this: I'm going to try to keep an out-of-universe perspective on this article, but I need help in knowing what sections to add or delete. I'm planning on adding a "Depiction" section, and rewrite the Characteristics part for less cruft and speculation. Debate and Theories will probably go or be merged somehow. Plus I'll add a concept and creation section. Any other topics the article might need to cover? Thanks. Dark Kubrick. 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest when I read a while ago I found it very informative for something that doesn't exist. But yeah, I think it'd be neat to take the fictional information on it's lifecycle (which fascinates everyone) and condense it into it's own section, and get on with the creature's popularity. Wiki-newbie 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The featured articles on fictional characters already provide a wonderful (self-explanatory) outline: Appearances, Characteristics, Concept and creation. - Tutmosis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Kinda obvious...I'm looking for more specific details...-- Dark Kubrick 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have again reworked this article and have combined sections together. The last time this article was placed under peer review it received little attention. I hope to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Apart from these minor things, it lloks to me ready for FAC. I do not judge the prose, because I am not a native English speaker, but again I don't see any serious prose deficiencies.-- Yannismarou 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi All - I request your assistance and advice on raising this article to FA status. It would be fabulous to have an article regarding one of the greatest glories of ancient India's civilizations on FA. I've expanded the text data and added pictures, but there is a lot of scope for improvement before it becomes FA class. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, looks good upon cursory glance. A few initial notes:
between numbers and their units (i.e., 665 [[candela]]s)–
to separate numerical ranges (i.e., in fiscal year 2000–2001
)More critique later ... Saravask 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Clarification I know a lot of material has been added from one source, but I've taken care to avoid a blatant copyvio. I'll be making further revisions with your help to incorporate more from other sources. Rama's Arrow 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
All the concerns of Sundar and Saravask have been addressed. The few dishonorable exceptions include:
(1) the compass-8/12 division of sky note in intro is referenced thru the "science" section.
Rama's Arrow 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi All - All the images have been put under fairusein|Lothal license. Only one, the painting portrayal on the top of the page is under questionable copyright - I'm afraid it calls for deletion. Thankfully I have a bunch of personally-taken photographs of Lothal that I can upload here by the weekend. Rama's Arrow 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Please get refs from more than one source! All the notes on the text are from one source. Besides that, basic copyediting reqd.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd personally break this up to read:
Hi - (1) "Archaelogy" is a section talking of Lothal's discovery, associated discoveries in the Gujarat region in terms of Indus valley civilization, and an archaelogical summary of city history. As opposed to that "Excavated City" discusses the sites that a traveler will see in Lothal, of what parts of the city have been excavated, etc. It is better that this section follows the "Charting history" and "Attributes" section, which explains how Lothal people built their place, and that "Archaelogy" be the best first section, leading into a detailed account of history, civilization and the present remains.
(2) I've renamed "Culture" to "Attributes..." becoz culture will often exclude the scientific achievements, economy and industry in its meaning. Also "Excavations is not good" becoz Excavation proper means digging up, nothing else. "Excavated City" is good title to describe the present resurrected remains of Lothal.
Thanks for your help on the grammar. I will introduce fresh re-writes on Monday and Tuesday.
Rama's Arrow 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you know about Google Book Search and Google Scholar? Can get lots of useful info from scholarly sources for new footnotes. Saravask 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I will introduce a major round of revisions, fresh information, new images, expansion and re-organization from February 13 to 17, and I believe this article will be ready by February 18. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's very well done, so I'll comment on some deeper points. The biggest issue seems to be that the referencing is heavily focused on one source. I'm sure it was the best source you had, but are there any additional current papers/works that shed significant new light on the issue since the 1985 book? The article doesn't mention any differences of scholarly opinion which I know is quite strong for the Indus Valley civilization in general. Perhaps that doesn't significantly affect this topic, but there's got to be some. Is Lothal's importance or reasons for/manner of downfall disputed at all? If you really wanted to take it to the next level some historiographical analysis would be included. Are there any significant criticisms of the ASI's methods/conclusions that would impact the information in the article? Is there any work on Indus Valley topics by Pakistani researchers that differ from the conclusions presented? Another detailed point is the intro to the 'Civilization' section states the people made significant contributions to human civilization in the era. That's a pretty strong statement and implies they made developments that were adopted elsewhere and did not just adopt what had been discovered by others. It also seems to imply or at least leaves open the possibility that the contributions had lasting effects on later civilization(s). Is there evidence to support either of these points? That paragraph could use expansion anyway as it is a bit short at two sentences. So yes I'm a tough critic, but the quality of the work so far leads me to believe you can meet these points too. - Taxman Talk 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I will complete this reply as I make the additions of data requested. Rama's Arrow 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe there are several theories that look at the disappearance of the Indus valley civilisation. Looking at only the flooding theory, seems incomplete, imo. Otherwise this is a good article. btw, I was wondering if lethal and Lothal have the same etymologicl roots ;) ... -- Gurubrahma 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Previous PR here. This was recently the US CotW, which saw some significant improvement. I've been working on it a long time and would like to bring it to FAC. Tuf-Kat 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Quick comments:
Circeus 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think of article length in terms of paragraphs (I think each paragraph averages out to about 1k), because I sometimes use the sentence paragraph technique, especially with expansive topics like this one.
For a grand total of 53 paragraphs, which I don't think is unreasonable for this topic. I considered cutting the institutions section entirely, but decided not to -- it would only drop 2k anyway. Tuf-Kat 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not; I know it needs some work, but let's see some feedback, please :) Deckiller 04:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK everythings in there, it just doesnt seem quite right. -- PopUpPirate 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, there's a lot of work to do but I intend to make a proper go of it!! -- PopUpPirate 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This article has been through a complete overhaul over the past month and I would like any feedback in ways that it can be improved. I would one day like to see it as a featured article. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
An audio sample would be great for the article, but I don't know how to upload one. If anyone can add one to the article it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Trebor27trebor Sanssouci translation
This article have had a lot of enhancements/expansions/corrections lately, a peer review I think is appropriate at this point. → Aza Toth 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am hoping to one day achieve featured article status for this article. Any and all comments are appreciated. -- Myles Long/cDc 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
KILO-LIMA 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This recently received "good article" designation with a comment that it was close to FA quality. The December peer review stressed a need for citations. The article now has 50 footnotes, which is more than most biography FAs. What would take it to the next level?
Durova 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 67 footnotes - I've been busy.
Durova
06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Try to use a more complicated sentence structure in some places to tie related sentences together. The current writing is very "basic" in that all sentences are very simple. For instance: "By the beginning of 1429 nearly all of the north and some parts of the southwest were under foreign control. The English ruled Paris and the Burgundians ruled Rheims. The latter was important as the traditional site of French coronations." could have a little more "flow" if it were condensed into two or even one sentence. Also this is another "dangler" since "north and some parts of the southwest" is used as a noun but these are really adjectives (does this mean "north and some parts of the southwest of France"?). — jdorje ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think in terms of facts, sequence, references and illustrations - it has everything. I think all it needs is to be edited so that it acquires a "more complicated sentence structure" as Jdorje commented. I find a good technique for detecting whether the flow is right or not, is to read it out loud. If that's not possible, at the very least read it paragraph by paragraph rather than sentence by sentence, in the same way you would if reading it aloud, rather than skimming through it. Whatever does not flow will become more prominent and easy to spot. I think the whole article would benefit from this approach because the short sentences occur throughout and give it a stilted style, but I don't think the "fix" is big. I think everything is there and just needs to be sewn together. I'm not sure how much time I'll have over the next few days but I'll try to help when I can. cheers. Rossrs 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest, simply for the sake of being more precise, that the reference to her home village being at Domrémy be modified to read, Domrémy-la-Pucelle. There are actually several other villages in NE France which begin with the name of Domrémy (Domrémy-Landéville, Domrémy-aux-Bois and Domrémy-la-Canne, to name three), though perhaps back in the year 1421, there may have only been one village called Domrémy. Jeanne d'Arc's home can be found in Domrémy-la-Pucelle at 48°26'31.88"N 5°40'28.27"E, using Google Earth's GPS coordinates. Canuck55 ( talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
"Possible Motivations" as a sub-section
I wanted to find out if my ideas for the improvement of the
Self-harm article are supported by people (other than me). This improvement focuses on the
"Psychology" portion of the article.
The13thzen
09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I came across this article by chance, and it looks good to me. It is a central part of a wider project and it seems that some relevant matters (read: political implications of global warming) have deliberately been moved to related pages, but otherwise it looks fairly complete. Stability could be an issue, though. Kosebamse 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
For a long time, this article has been at the center of strong POV and factual controversies (one Arbitration I can remember, likely more), so for that reason alone, it's unlikely to ever get featured. Circeus 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now nearly, but perhaps not quite, comprehensive in its content. We'd appreciate comments on layout, readability and whether it's understandable to lay people, as well as whether anything's missing. Joe D (t) 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think the usage of the neologism "bright" in the intro should be changed, especially since according to the wiki article describing this uncommon usage, Dawkins is one of those promoting the term as described. The intro should rather say who describes Dawkins as "bright" and give more of a context; alternatively this could be discussed in the body of the article rather than in the intro. The reason I think there should be more context is that this definition is not common usage, and the (appropriate) quotation marks don't give enough context to explain what is meant by calling him "bright." Kaisershatner 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The subject matter of this article seems particularly compelling at the moment, given the current world focus on the issues surrounding the clash of Islam and the west; and the struggle today between Israel and the Palestinians over the 'Holy Land', which in some ways echoes that of the era of Manuel Comnenus and the Crusaders. Over the past couple of months this article has expanded and changed hugely, and I believe it is now at a stage where a little constructive feed-back would go a long way towards helping the article to eventually become a FA. Proof-readers and comments would be much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions! I've tried to make all the changes mentioned here, so I was wondering, what's the next step on the way to making this article a FA? :D Bigdaddy1204 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with seeing ManuelI as the last great Byzantine emperor. In lieu of what he achieved he seems to be unable to focus on any area of his frontier long enough to re build the empire or generally strengthin it. He was at least a competant emperor but is he worthy to be considered a great emperor? He managed to hold the emperor together but then again Myriokephalon occurred and the empire was dealt another death stroke and within serveral decadesof his death the fourth crusade occurred. Yamam
"Manuel I Comnenus (November 28, 1118 – September 24, 1180), called Megas ("the Great"), was the last of the truly 'great' Byzantine Emperors."
I agree with Yamam that Manuel had the failings mentioned, which were an important feature of his character as in many ways it was these failings which caused the ultimate failure of the Comnenian recovery of the empire. Since the cohesion of the Comnenus family was not going to hold together after his death, in many ways Manuel's reign was a crucial window of opportunity, in which the Byzantine Empire had a chance to recover from Manzikert and achieve lasting greatness again, or if it failed to do so, face another period of decline after Manuel's death.
More specifically, in the opening sentence I wanted to convey his importance as the last Byzantine Emperor to rule over an Empire that was an empire. After Manuel, Byzantium would only linger on as a shadow of its former self, not really large or powerful enough to merit the description of 'empire' at all, except as a description that helps to identify it as the remnant of the greatness that had passed away. But if he should not be called the last of the great emperors, what can we do with that lead sentence, which I think is very important to the article? We need a way of explaining his importance here, without necessarily using the term 'great'. Ideas on this would be very much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The last significant, important emperor that still managed to project Byzantine power and influence. could be a good way to start. ( Yamam 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC))
Can someone tell me how I can fix my footnotes? I'm about to nominate the article for FA but I think this last simple technical issue needs fixing first. Bigdaddy1204 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This article deals with the May 18, 1927 series of bombings that killed forty-five people, mostly grade school children, in Bath, Michigan. The article itself is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan and Featured Article status is being sought. The anniversary date is coming up shortly and I hope this can be ready for Article of the Day status for that date. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. This is the first request for Peer Review. Jtmichcock 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
NB: I have been persuaded that the article should be titled "Bath School disaster" with the lower-case D. I will modify this after the peer review is completed insofar as I am concerned that a Move now could screw up this sub-page. Jtmichcock 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I have read the link, but I don't see anything on the linked page mentioning that he had enough assets to pay off the mortgage? Did I miss it, or is that sentence in the article incorrect? -- 94.195.20.3 ( talk) 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)