This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
I created this page a few months ago. I consider it to be solid in its prose and complete in its content. References section is short, but it all came from one (a book), and there's a web site to back it up. Hoping to get this to featured status (incidentally – would it classify as a featured list?). Thanks. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is an article which I originally created and worked on regarding one of the more notable episodes of the TV series M*A*S*H. It achieved GA status after about a week and a half on Wikipedia, and I had a couple of questions regarding what can be done with it. First of all, since this is a shorter article, and one on a specific episode of a TV show, would this be a suitable candidate for FAC? The article is researched well in my opinion, and has 20 citations from 10 sources. And then, secondly, if this article is suitable for FAC, I was also wondering what improvements can be made or any suggestions you might have. Thank you very much for any and all advice and help. - Hotstreets 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
On a sidenote, I have also fixed what automated review suggestions I thought applied to the article. Once again, thank you very much for your advice! Hotstreets 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article about a Category 5 hurricane had been greatly improved in the last few days by User:Hurricanehink and is now a GA. What is needed for it to become an FA? CrazyC83 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've recently expanded and copy edited this article, and I'd like to nominate it to WP:FAC. Before that, I'd appreciate any comments on it. Are any terms too vague as to warrant explanation? Does everything flow well? Thanks for any help. — BrianSmithson 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There has been much less development of fungi pages than of many other collaborations i have been involved with. I figured Amanita muscaria was a page that could one day be a FAC though needs alot of polishing! I figured placing it here was a good starting points for ideas as I felt a bit at a loss at where to continue. Cas Liber 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(tricky this. I would rather link to other mushroom pages than have images of related species on this page as there are other desirable images to have - odd colour forms/art/etc. I do agree about highlighting differences Cas Liber 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Opabinia regalis 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The layout of this article is all rather messy, as is the extensive list of Pop Culture references. I'd like to see other's view on this. I think if this article was worked on enough, it could gain Featured Article Status. Nautica Shades( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
What do all of u think I can add more to enhance the quality of the article? Help me.
Amartyabag 09:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments. Please try to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. There should not be sections like "Places to See" (can be incorporated in Culture, History etc), "Hotels".
Also, the article lacks inline citations. The article won't survive an FAC without those. Anyway, a really commendable effort for a town that does not probably have good number of web resource to work on. Keep it up. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Good work so far. I recommend a copyedit as some of the prose is awkward (Sport for example). Phrases such as "In course of time, Cooch Behar has been transformed from a kingdom to a State and from a State to the present status of a district, and Cooch Behar its district headquarters." feel awkward. Lead needs a little cleaning up as well. Some of the redlink subjects may already have articles; for example:
Besides mainstream Indian Television Channels, the town also receives Nepali Television Channels and Bangladeshi Television Channels.
There might be a article listing the television channels of those countries, but not necessarily under that name. CloudNine 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Others" being:
I'm grouping these togther because they are all very similar in format and content, and so any comment which applies to one almost certainly applies to them all. Their peer-review sub-pages should re-direct here. I'm seeking general comments and sugegstions for improvements, in particular answers to questions like:
For the record, the SK list is former featured list candidate ( sub-page). It failed due to insufficient support.
Thanks in advance for any comments! Tompw 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The Ziff Davis article has been on clean-up for about a year, and they are a pretty big company in the internet technology news field. I've tried to make some improvements in the past hour or so, and I'd like tips on how my fellow editors and I can improve it further. - CaptainAmerica 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Relisting for peer review, as I received no response last time. I'd really like for someone to give this article a thorough review, if not, a short note pointing out some obvious errors. Input on the talk page is limited, so please, any input will be much appreciated. Kind regards, – sebi 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the advertisment tag isn't a good start.
That's all I've got for now...I've watchlisted this page, so ask any questions :) Giggy Talk 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:19, 14 August 2007 (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)
Need recommendations on what could be added to improve the article. Mfields1 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As I've said in a previous PR, Big Brother Australia articles don't get as much attention as other Big Brother articles, so any opinions or suggestions would be much appreciated. jd || talk || 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel this is a decent bodied article, that now needs a review to perhaps check on its writing style and what further information could be given. Is it possible for it to reach featured status (i.e. how close is it and is the subject notable enough to have enough relevant info?) -- Robdurbar 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I really feel this article could go all the way. It just needs a little push in the right direction. -- Ppk01 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Peer review prior to a month-long editing collaboration has been requested. Thanks for all your comments. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 October 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)
Make Way For Ducklings is a children's book set in Boston, Massachusetts. As little as a month ago, the article looked like this. With a little bit of research, ample information was found about the book, its sales, its history, and critical and cultural reaction. I believe this article would make a great FA, but of course, I would love a peer review. A review is especially important, as there are not currently any featured articles on children's books. Thank you so much for taking the time! — Scm83x hook 'em 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The Silent Hill film page has been GA for a few months now. The editors all did a great job and I'm looking to push its quality up higher, possibly to a higher rating or FA. I'm looking for any and all feedback and comments regarding the article.
Previous Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Silent Hill (film)/archive1
Plot is overlong. Move cast information and any minor stuff to a new section, ala Star Wars/Lord of the Rings articles. WikiNew 10:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Lead needs expansion. Quadzilla99 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just read the article Russian language that is a FA. I was thinking of improving this article to a similar quality, I am open for suggestions what to do. Thank you in advance. -- Ton e 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please comment on how this article can be improved. Thank you. -- NE2 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In section #2 History, I'd suggest that the year 1927 be referenced in the first sentence so that users don't have to click on the 7ref.
Dharp66
20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66
Please give suggestions to make this article better. Any merging? Separation? Style Tips? -- TLW 07:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me your opinions on the content of the article, and any improvements I can make. If you are going to edit the article yourself, please list what change(s) you made below. Thanks very much.
Dhastings 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This is my best article, please review it. Showmanship is the key 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment The article must clearly define the geographic boundaries of North America. Joelito ( talk) 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
A few things (nothing personal!):
It's a promising article however. CloudNine 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam
Kurzon 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The GA underwent a new part of edits. Feel free to indicate what should be done generally and added further. Thanks. -- Brand спойт 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This article was a recent Wikipedia:Spotlight collaberation. We think that our changes have improved it enough to make it nearly ready for featured. We removed large sections and placed them in their own articles. Thank you for your consideration. Bastiq▼e demandez 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be unpopular with my Spotlight friends... I can't see GA yet, because I'm not fond of the references list. I'm picky, I'm allowed to be here. Feel free to disagree. I want to see all cite.php based references. *nod* Other than that, go ahead. Oh, can we stuff an infobox in there? I like infoboxes...pretty... :) ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I request the advice and help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it very interesting and some good information about the spelling of Viet Nam, the country. I'm trying to determine the origin of the spelling: Viet = People, Nam= of the south, meaning the Vietnamese were not the people of the north, the Chinese.
The one-word spelling seems to have come from Western journalists sending telex messages. Charged by the word, Dien Bien Phu became expensive, as did Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Da Nang, etc. To cut costs they made one word, the style manuals picked that up, and it stuck.
The Vietnamese are a humble people and would never tell a foreigner their spelling was incorrect. When they use the name "Vietnam" as mention for Nam Dan, it's simply a case of the Vietnamese knowing Westerners (mostly Americans) wouldn't recognize or understand the proper spelling, so they continue the myth and continue to make money.
For myself, I'm using the term Viet Nam, as the older people would. Younger Vietnamese might use one word, and the Viet-kieu (overseas Vietnamese) have been raised with the single word version. That's all they know.
Using Viet Nam recognizes the original and local spelling, and begins to offer Americans a new look at healing from the American war. The one-word name is associated with the war, and the national psyche immediately interprets that name into emotional issues. It’s like a case of national PTSD. I believe with a new (which luckily happens to be correct) spelling, Americans of the war era will develop new emotions and appreciation for the country, and slowly leave the war. With a new war in our lives, we need healing from the past in order to better cope with the trauma and lies of the present. Thanks for any discussion.
Thanks,
Ted
and links to several sub-articles ( Vietnamese cuisine, Vietnamese music, etc.)
This article became a GA, and I want to know how to improve it so it can become a Featured Article. Any tips are greatly appreciated. -- Esteban F. (con.) 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Resubmitting for peer review. Recently I've been adding citations and cutting down the fancruft. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what could be improved or expanded, notes on the interestingness of the writing and also whether the article meets Good Article status. - kollision 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A remarkable Victorian lady who was born as a mixed-race free woman in Jamaica when it was still a slave society. She practised as a "doctress" in Jamaica, Panama and the Crimean War, and is sometimes called the black Florence Nightingale. She disappeared from public view after her death in 1881, and has only re-emerged in the last 20 years. Her life story is now taught alongside that of Nightingale in British primary schools.
I am going to be adding further references (particularly from the main source, her autobiography) and there are some academic sources that may be fruitful (details on request). Any comments would be welcome before I take this to WP:FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know whether I should add anything; I plan to use this as a general template for other routes. Thank you. -- NE2 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to hear suggestions on bringing the article to FA or A status, including prose, styling, sources, etc. Also if anyone has further sources for interviews please provide them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is very good, and I want to submit it for Featured Status soon. What does it need to be at FA quality? Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 05:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Following several complains about the abysmal state of the previous version of the page ( [3]), I tried to "clean-room" rewrite it to the current version. It's a big enough change that I'd appreciate more sets of eyes checking to see that I didn't inadvertendly make it worse ;). More specifically, there are a few concerns I have:
Anything else that comes to mind I'll listen to and see if they can be used to improve the articel. 68.39.174.238 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Bookgrrl sez: Definitely better, good work! Couple of comments:
<ref>{{cite web|title=Mather, Increase. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.|publisher=Bartleby.com|url=http://www.bartelby.net/65/ma/Mather-I.html| accessdate=October 12|accessyear=2006}}</ref>
This is still a work in progress so I'm looking for suggestions whether of content or style. I'm fairly new around here. BTW, as an aside the article wasn't my idea - it was pointed out by a friend that though Scott was mentioned on many pages he didn't have a page. I thought to go about making one and had to seriously prove I wasn't being vain. FYI, this apage is about a comic book illustrator-- Smkolins 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
So the next challenge - the bibiography.... On the one hand it only makes general reference to the source(s) of data and on the other hand isn't complete. Anyone got a good example how to do this?-- Smkolins 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've really been working on this article, adding information form what seems to be the only extensive non-Arabic source (the book by Avi Jorisch). I am planning on adding more info from the same source, but I thought I'd get some feedback here first. I was especially hoping for feedback on sections 1 (history), 1.1 (banning of broadcasts), 2.1 (programs), and 2.2 (religion and politics). Those are the ones I mainly worked on.-- Carabinieri TTaallkk 11:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Nasrallah should be kept in the infobox, because according to Beacon of Hatred by Avi Jorisch (pg. 20): "it [the Lebanese Media Group, the company that owns al-Manar] is operated by Hizballah members, reports directly to Hizballah officials, and takes its marching orders from Hassan Nasrallah's office." Jorisch cites an "Interwiev with Middle East expert granted to author on condition of anonymity" as well as this article in the Daily Star. I surely think Nazrallah is a key person, since he is the Secretary General of the organization that seems to control the tv station.-- Carabinieri TTaallkk 15:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
All images needing Fair Use rational were tagged, and redundant text was removed. Requesting new peer review as points from last have been fixed. 123wiki123 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This really isn't about the article, I'd like to know what others think of (mostly) my writing style as far being encyclopedic is concerned and where I (and the article) could use some improvements. akuyume T C 05:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Minor actor, still could be FA quality though. What needs to be added or changed to get it there? Judgesurreal777 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article presents information about U2's 1983 protest song and single. It achieved good article status in June. Since then quite a bit has changed ( diff), and I think it's time to test the waters here to see what needs to be done next. Some questions I have for general editors who might not be self-proclaimed U2 experts (as most of the editors of the article to this point have been):
Basically, I think it's pretty good, but it's been combed only by a group of U2 fans. I'm looking for the opinions of outside Wikipedians, I suppose. Thanks! McMillin24 contribs talk 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In the lead, I find two substantiation (sp?) problems. "The song's musical style can be considered militaristic..." begs the question, considered by whom? If the answer is critics and/or fans, that needs to be cited. On the other hand, if the answer is the article writer, we should not ask readers to accept our artistic interpretations, so a rephrasing would be in order. Likewise "It is considered by some to be the ultimate protest song by U2 and has become one of the band's signature songs." Who are these "some", and can their considerations be referenced to reliable sources? Other issues: please convert the "Cultural references" section into prose, per the embedded list guideline. And finally, consider a transwiki of the Bono block quote to Wikiquote. You have done good work here! - Fsotrain 09 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this list is useful (although there could be even more blue links), comprehensive (more so than the Norwegian version it was based upon) and factually accurate (good references). It is also stable and uncontroversial. I also reckon it is well-constructed, but I would appreciate feedback on the table - is everything understandable? The lead section provides a good background and overview, I hope it's not too long.
The table of contents criterion is not applicable to this list. Also, I don't know what images would appropriate here. Punkmorten 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this page is of good quality, possibly good enough for Good/Featured Article status. I have requested this review to point out any flaws that may need to be amended/removed entirely, before any nominations take place. RMS Oceanic 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A groundbreaking film, both in story and special effects. Any tips please? Wiki-newbie 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
So just the two? Wiki-newbie 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I am too new to the scene to advise you on formatting and house style, but here are a few comments on content. You have done very fine job on the Synopsis, although arguably it is over-long. Conversely I was disappointed that the 'Influences and interpretations' section was so short. You note that 'The Matrix makes numerous references to recent films and literature, and to historical myths and philosophy including Messianism, Buddhism and Gnosticism'. I would have been interested either:
In a few sentences outlining the comparisons between the Matrix pantheon and these schools of thought, and including both Vedanta, and Advaita in the list. (Especially the latter: 'Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal'), or
At least pointing to some such discussions along these lines elsewhere. If The Matrix has a value which is more than mere entertainment it is surely in bringing these ideas to a mainstream western audience, even if they are largely unaware of the parallels. Its only an opinion of course, but this to me is more pertinent than your assertion that in the 'first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film.' Ben MacDui 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
In 1993, Carrie-Anne Moss appeared in a short-lived science fiction television series called Matrix.
Good work so far. As a fan of the film, I'd like to see a good an article as possible :) CloudNine 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on the significance of names needs to be sourced - otherwise it seems like original research. Trebor 10:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just looking for some feedback. I've added a ton of pictures and added info about the major exhibits. I'd also be interested in any other good zoo articles on WP. The best I've found is National Zoological Park (United States).
What didn't the article tell you about the omaha zoo that you'd want to know? Cburnett 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just came by to see what I can do to improve this article. Although it is questionable whether it will reach FA status, especially due to a lack of information (unlike the more successful LRT and MRT articles, which are FAs already), it will be nice if I can get this peer reviewed, even for this article to reach GA status. Any comments (and additional resources) are highly appreciated. -- Sky Harbor 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get this article ready for the featured article consideration. Comments are appreciated. -- Zonerocks 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I deeply appriciate your help. I will get down to it quickly. -- Zonerocks 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, what a gobbledy-gook babely mess. Just started to fix it, doing a side-by-side comparison with the German. Not a registered user (yet?) or frequent Wiki contrib (maybe my 2nd or 3rd) so there's typos, errors of link usage, and various other mistakes.
Since I know enough German to fix the text, I hope you agree with my strategy of giving that priority, to the point where I'm (for now) going to leave obvious typos, errors of link formation, bolding etc (which I'm still learning by observation) to others, in favor of translation work, which is something I can do. (If you don't agree, let me know, I'll change tack.)
Got thru the first 3 paragraphs. This is gonna be a ton of work, not promising to do it all, but will do what I can. Kudos to the Germans, by the way, for a good article. Mathglot 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This article just went through the gauntlet of Wikipedia:Spotlight collaboration. Here is a before and after. Wowee. Anyways, sources should all comply with cite.php, and there are sections that have their own articles (i.e. Northwestern Passage). Enjoy, hoping to bring this on to be a GA or FA. JoeSmack Talk 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway other than that, a wonderful article and I'm glad Spotlight turned out to be so effective. You guys should be proud. - Tutmosis 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well it's a decent start, but frankly this article needs more development. Here's a few comments that are hopefully of some use:
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Plans are made to have it copyedited, and the issues on the to-do list are being taken care of. However, constructive criticism from the peer review folks before FAC never hurts. Any suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. Would this qualify as a good article? Please let me know what can be done to improve it. b_cubed 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Good luck. drumguy8800 C T 04:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking like its ready for FA just wanted to get some opinions and have the PR bot run over the article to check for any minor issues. Gnangarra 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in learning what can be done to improve the article. As a member of the church, I know a great many details about it, but also run the risk of creating a non-neutral point of view. -- Scottandrewhutchins 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Contributions requested are
I am hoping to nominate this article for FA within the next few weeks, but I believe it still needs some work before going there. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions so I can take care of them before then. — ptk✰ fgs 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Tell me anything that could make the article HSV Senator Signature a better and more injoyable one. Please fell free to add stuff or contribute to HSV Senator Signature, but make sure to add your references.
Um, you don't appear to have added any references, which needs to be done. It also focuses almost solely on the history of design - there's nothing on sales, popularity, critical review, people involved in design, etc. Trebor 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've written a comprehensive and detailed article here. But I think I may not have integrated it well or just been too idiosyncratic in places - it hasn't been edited much by other people (or at all). It's a really important topic in history, so I think it deserves good solid coverage. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, after getting The Fray to GA status, I decided to take it upon myself to give one of my other favorite artists that same distinction. I beefed up the article with sources galore (btw, if "References" appears blank, that's a bug with the gallery tag that will hopefully be resolved soon) and some more information about his life, but prose is still my weak spot. If you have any suggestions for how to expand the article, I'll gladly listen to them as well. Basically, I need someone with great English skills to do a copyedit of the article. Thanks in advance :) Teemu08 06:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Past review(s):
Archive1
Resubmitting the Sparks article as it has been very stable for a long time and requires fresh eyes for its development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos ( talk • contribs) 09:27, October 21, 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
To do (based on comments below - please correct/add to)
-- KaptKos 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
– Heav e n's Wrath Talk 18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions for ya, nice work so far.
Hope my suggestions are useful. Cheers! Wickethewok 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice article, enjoyed reading it. Just a few suggestions:
<ref name="X">{{cite web | author= X| year= X | title="X" | work=X| url=X | accessdate= October 21 | accessyear=2006}}</ref>
format for all refs.Other than that, great work! - Coil00 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My impressions:
The rest of the article looks much better formed in comparison, so I mostly focused on these sections. – Unint 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started and working on this article since October 3 (first day of the incident). All kinds of comments will be appreciated, also contributions will be great. My biggiest concern is about article is about hijacker(s) part. At first press thaught that there were 2 hijackers, and in references and reports its like ANSA reported that police detained both hijackers. What can i do about these parts, i guess best way is using as plural because at that time all presses were thinking there were 2 and reporting like that. Thanks -- Ugur Basak 00:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This page undergone an extensive rewrite since it's last peer review, mostly by myself, and I could really use some feedback on issues such as layout, flow, understandability, length, ect...
Thanks so much to anyone willing to read this article-- DO11.10 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (Ignore the <ref> tags above, this was generated mostly by JavaScript) Thanks, AZ t 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the major limitation of this article is its massive length. There are already a lot of subarticles, but you could make the TOC a bit more manageable by not having quite so many subsections - four layers deep is just too many. The subsections of "phagocytes", for example, could all be merged up into a few paragraphs in a single section; just because something has a main article doesn't mean it needs its own header and main template. Also, I'd strongly suggest creating intermediate-level articles on adaptive and innate immunity, which would shorten this article and make it more readable.
Other than the length, the content is good, though it could use some organization. The early sections are very listy and need prosifying (this will lengthen them, which strengthens the argument for splitting the article). There's also a couple of images that could be improved - for example, the image of a dendritic cell is too cartoony; a more detailed drawing or an image of a real cell would be more illustrative.
The references also need work. The extensive reliance on textbooks isn't so bad (though all those little notes to Immunobiology might better be formatted as citations of pages/chapters in a notes section, with the text listed in a separate reference section). But referencing other Wikipedia articles is generally bad; importing the relevant references makes them easier for a reader to track down. There are also a few uncited statements floating around; "B-cells may be named for the bursa of Fabricius, an organ unique to birds, where the cells were first found to develop" stood out. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There is alot more work to be done, and I'll be happy to help when I get the chance. Unfortunately I sort of have my hands full at the moment. Hope these help; expect more in the near furture. – Clockwork Soul 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, so many great suggestions! Thank you both for your very helpful ideas. I have been reading up on WP:SS for a while, I as guessing that this would be the best way to split out Innate and acquired, do you agree?
It is funny that you mention the Bursa part... there was apparently a (somewhat) nasty discussion about that before I began editing this article, which is why I hesitantly left it in.
Great idea about the refs, although I also own Janeway 6th edition and Kuby, which basically has much of the same content, and I could include those as references also, I just really like the idea of pointing to online textbooks.
I actually did have a section about the complement system in the article, but I felt that a)it was difficult to find the right "place" in the innate system and b) that the article was getting too long, which I can see, other agree with. It appears that I will need to split the article. I think that then I can really give the complement system and hypersensitivity/allergy the attention they deserve.
How do you find the original piece on the complement system? Any suggestions, however small, would be appreciated. The complement system is is really not my forte.
Complement System
The complement system is a biochemical cascade of the immune system that helps clear pathogens or mark them for destruction by other cells. The cascade is composed of many small plasma proteins, synthesized in the liver, primarily by hepatocytes, which work together to:
Elements of the complement cascade can be found in many species evolutionarily older than earlier than mammals including plants, birds, fish and some species of invertebrates.
Thanks again for the great comments-- DO11.10 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at improving this up to Featured Article status (it's currently at GA) - any suggestions on what needs to be improved upon, clarified etc. will be appreciated. Thanks, Alexj2002 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking for ideas and suggestions on how to improve the article. Perhaps one day for FA status. The Filmaker 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get this article up to Featured Article status by the end of the year. I know references and such will be needed soon, but I'm more interested in obtaining feedback on how the article might be improved in terms of things like clarity, layout, consistency, WP:MOS, etc. Feedback (positive or negative) appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to bring the article down but give suggestions. Good luck. - Tutmosis 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the lead needs to be expanded in order to fit in with guidelines at WP:LEAD. Titles such as "What about the DuMont stations?" seem a little chatty to me, and more inline cites would be nice. Interestingly enough, if the article was to get to FA status, it would be the first article about a television network to do so - but crib some tips from other GA network articles. CloudNine 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Listing nomination nominator didn't complete fully, and notifying him. I think, generally, any comments would be appreciated. How the article could be improved, or if there is something that might need explaining in simpler terms. – Ch acor 04:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review for breadth of coverage, spelling/grammar errors, and the general writing style. - Dozenist talk 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Overall the article is very good and comprehensive. – Outriggr § 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Animals. You knew this was coming -- yes, they're uncommon in companion animals, but what about other animals? FR says that for "For most non-human mammals, the presence of caries is evidence of bad general health and nutritional deficiencies." No citation is given there, but this needs to be addressed.
2. Prevalence in developed World You talk a bit about them being more common in North America and Asia and less so in Africa. It would be nice to explore differential rates in different developed countries. And when you say:
this holds only for California. Is it the same world-wide? Significantly different?
3. History FR gives a bit of uncited data on the origin of human caries. This is important. Here's a free translation:
4. Causes What about Tobacco use? And medical disorders such as Hyperthyroidism and Hyperparathyroidism? Perhaps a bit more on the potential vaccine (though not much; it has its own article)
DE says that there are "several theories on the development of caries. Today the chemo-parasitical Theory of W.D. Miller is generally accepted. Thus, caries result from several pathological factors causing the desctruction of dental tissue in several stages."
Maybe you should go into this more, though I can't comment further on it (due to my ignorance)
5. Images Would these images help illustrate the article?
6. Pseudoscience. I know this article shouldn't get bogged down by crank theories about caries. But a mention of the most prominent ones is in order.
You've done what looks like an excellent job so far. I hope these critiques will be helpful as you *hopefully!* try to bring this article up to featured status. -- Zantastik talk 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has reached GA. I would like to know what is needed to get this to FA. Any suggestions are welcome. RelHistBuff 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I added two more photos and more details on his early life, in particular his family's interest in the WCG and his conversion. As for the final section, detailling the collapse of the church would at first appear to be a negative assessment of Tkach to most people's eyes. But interestingly, the details of the collapse are from sources that are supporters of Tkach. I have tried to show this dichotomy of views on the collapse so that this section will be appear more neutral. RelHistBuff 11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A couple thoughts...
Overall I think this is an excellent article on a difficult subject. I think with more details to flesh out the subject it could be well on its way to FA status. Agne 11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added an explanation of what triggered the reforms and some details of the decision-making process. The feedback has definitely helped to improve the article and I am open to more suggestions and criticisms. RelHistBuff 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a cover from The Plain Truth to the page? It would add something to the description. Mfields1 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Fin Whale/archive1.
A link to this article appeared on Wikipedia's main page on October 23 in the current events section. It has been cleaned up significantly and in-line citations added since its last peer review. I'd like to get an idea of what it would need to push it into good or featured article quality. An older version of this article was listed as a featured article candidate and time hasn't run out on that yet even though I don't think it's getting many eyeballs any more, so I'm not sure if I'm doing things out of order by requesting another peer review at this point. Neil916 ( Talk) 07:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I forgot to come back to this. The image conflict problem is resolved now. Looks very good! Some of the recent material, ie in the abundance section and the lead, could use a quick prose run-through (for example, "This shows a substantial recovery compared to a survey in 1976 showing..."). IIRC naked years don't need wikilinks, and somewhere there's a mention of the "2007-2008 season" where only one of the two years is linked. The abundance section has a lot of great data - maybe a table would help to keep track of which trends are in which places? Opabinia regalis 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This one had a peer review before which didn't receive that much feedback but during the GA nomination it was improved greatly. Now it is a GA and quite nice article overall. Now before possible FA nomination we'd like to have some reviewing. -- Pudeo ( Talk) 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts...
Overall, I agree that it is a great article. I would be very aware of POV which I think will be scrutinized in FAC because of the sensitive subject matter. Agne 12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A bigger lead is now in User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/FCW. It's too long at the moment, but hopefully it will be modified to an appropriate form. Other changes made in the art. also, according to your review, thank you. -- Ilummeen 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Finnish Civil War/archive1
Hello! Here are my observations so far:
Also, might want to mention that the universal suffrage was not limited to men-- it was the first European country to grant suffrage to women, if I remember correctly.
All in all, great job though! -- plange 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you -- plange for the great comments and a special apology for forgetting you ladies with suffrage to women in 1906. I'm glad you noticed it, if you had not, I would be soon attacked by a female "flying detachment" of my own tribe at home :):) -- Ilummeen 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article (which deals with a town in England), has been developing for some time now, and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community.
I (as a significant contributor) would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate step for assistance with this. Therefore, constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now in December 2006, I am re-entering the article for a peer review (automated and manual) in an effort to further the article.
I believe the previous suggestions have been met and thus hope to receive new recommendations for moving this article towards WP:GA. I believe the format of the article is fine, it is any objectionable statements or other such entries which could be brought inline with the more obscure policies of Wikipedia as soon as possible, which I am looking for. Thanks, Jhamez84 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this article just passed a GA and I'm hoping to eventually try for FA, but having worked on it for a while, I'm starting to get blind about the overall impact it makes. I'd really appreciate your comments on whether it grabs your attention, is consistent and keeps you reading. Grateful for your opinion on whether the summary style works and whether all the style manual components are correct. Cheers-- Saganaki- 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an excellent critique. Get working on improvements right away.-- Saganaki- 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that and it sounds like a good idea. The way I'd approach it is to write a summary and then link through to ethical talk in Brain implant and mind control. Here's why. Currently, there are relatively few criticims of BCIs because:
This could change in the future, for example today's brain pacemakers which aren't considered BCIs could become a lot more sophisticated. Neurochips could also develop further, for example the artificial hippocampus. I would say that the ethical considerations related to BCIs will be very similar or the same to those as for Brain implant and mind control where a debate has already begun. So because the BCI article is already v. long and to avoid duplication I'd suggest creating a preamble then linking to these pages for the full story. Think that works?-- Saganaki- 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get this article to a place where it could be a featured article. Please review in particular the use of citation, citation format (please fix anything that's improperly formatted!), use of images (I'm not happy with the quality of the photos, but they're the best I can find that's GFDL or otherwise available so far), comment on length (but please don't cut any major sections without discussion, it got so long for a reason!), and look over the "controversies" section (almost everything in there is a result of a disagreement of some sort).
I don't know if this article can become a featured article or not, but I'd like to see what non-horsey reviewers think. Arabian horses are, for some reason I can't quite fathom, a rather controversial breed, and many issues have to be handled delicately to avoid upsetting those who care. Montanabw 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, Shadowfax. Erm, a larger lead for one, and I'd like to see a photo rather than a painting in the infobox. Wiki-newbie 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's my view: (This is all I had time for, I'll come back later.)
Serious work here needed:
Notes: Contradictory. To fix this, specify that although it is a horse of good disposition, it requires respect and sensitivity from its owner.
All for now. -- Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know what could be done (major changes) to promote this article to FA status. Please refrain from putting that a certain sentence doesn't have a closing parentheses or doesn't have a comma, because that can be done by yourself! Thanks, Booksworm Talk to me! 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review as I would like this to be peer reviewed as I feel there are plenty of people who know better about this subject than I am. Also there needs more than what is featured. Do bear in mind this is my first request, thanks a lot. Willirennen 16.10 25 October 2006 (utc)
We're discussing sources as well as content. The general need in this article is to cover both the well verifiable uses of the term as well as numerous popular uses of the term. A previous article, WebOS started out on the subject of a particular project at UC Berkeley, and then over time it meandered into the various popular uses of the term -- but without a clear and concise presentation for the reader. The objective in this article is to make this presentation covering all aspects of the use of the term. - JohnPritchard 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been tough to realize the collective opinion on the subject of these articles. It's my estimation that it comes down to merging WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system into one. Such was far from my first choice as individual articles seemed nicer hypertext, but with such strong reactions to individual articles covering these subjects it seems clear that this is the will of the community in the neighborhood. - JohnPritchard 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, "will of the community" is also at debate. Naturally. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a former Afd (closed) as well as a deletion review on the topic of this name Web operating system. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Someone nominated this to be a featured article, but I don't think it's ready yet. However, I think with some more work, it can get there. This is a band with a long history who should have a good article to represent them.
From what I can tell, the intro paragraph needs some fleshing out, and I have some ideas as to how to do that, although any takers would be great. The biggest problem is that the article lacks references. Where can we get them besides BR fan sites? I don't think that they're any more reliable than anything else out there, so anyone with previous experience working on another band's wikipedia page would be most helpful. I'm going to start looking, but if I find something that's deemed unworthy, it'll be an exercise in frustration.
I reshaped the Influence and Tributes section out of a cluster of small paragraphs, but now I'm not sure if people will balk at it because it's so "listy".
Any ideas, suggestions or other forms of help are most appreciated. Thanks in advance, m13b 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be stuff on who influenced them as well as who they influenced. On the dvd jay bentley cites Adolescents as an influence anyone know of any others? 86.138.164.207 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It should explain how they got back together 86.132.211.64 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted! Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Since a couple of days, I have made a revamp of this article. It was full of misleading images and unsourced statements and very long quotes. I have put well-defined references and removed some unverified statements. Here, I would like other opinions from reviewers about this article. Any suggestions, critics, corrections and direct copy-editing are very welcome. Thanks in advance. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked into the introduction, and I think it is very good (links all work, refs are good). Also, really like the birds eye view graphic. Only question from intro is “explosion sound was heard until Sumatra” - perhaps you meant in Sumatra, suggestion would be to “explosion sound could be heard in Sumatra”… ... ? just a suggestion Dharp66 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66
The article looks great. Could the one lonely bit of trivia be incorporated into the text somewhere? User:Wayward might accept a request for copyediting if you ask him. -- Peta 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I have added notable quotes at the end of the article. Could somebody please make a review of the article? Thanks. — Indon ( reply) — 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Question: Do you think that the article is eligible for the WP:FAC? — Indon ( reply) — 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I want people to review the article I have made. Make suggestions for the improvements that can be made. I still believe that the article has a scope for expansion even after I have added considerable ammount of information. ( Gambit pk 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
I just read the section about the death. Some comments :
A really iconic character. Any suggestions? Wiki-newbie 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does
I recently got into a debate with an anthropologist user here, who changed the term " archaeologist" to " antiquarian" in the articles on Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones 4, and Harrison Ford. I reverted these edits and put a warning on his talk page. He took offense and a debate ensued (see User talk:68.101.67.16).
I pointed out that the films present the Jones as an archaeologist. This user said Jones doesn't perform archaeology; rather, he's a treasure hunter and grave robber. The user felt that antiquarian is closer to what Indiana Jones actually practices, although the antiquarian article also needs some association with grave robbing.
I have to admit, this user has a point, and the distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does should be made in all articles about Indiana Jones. = Axlq 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly believe that at least a section of the Indiana Jones articles should deal with the real life distinction between what a real archaeologist does and what Jones does. No matter what the film represents Jones as, the differences should be noted. I admit that grave robber maybe a little harsh for antiquarians, as it was the educated class taking artifacts from sites with no regard for the context nor culture it was associated with. They didn't do it always for personal gain in the same way grave robbers did. Antiquarians was a form of archaic archaeological thought focused only on the antiques themselves. In this way, Indiana Jones exemplifies antiquarianism rather than archaeology. I think it is important to note the distinctions between the two. 68.101.67.16 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's fair enough. Can anyone recommend good sources on Indiana Jones as an influential pop culture icon? Wiki-newbie 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of work has been put into this article overtime. I'd like to know how well the various editors who worked on this article have done, and what more could be done to bring this entry to featured article quality. ( Ibaranoff24 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
Very nice in generel. Some remarks for further improvement:
I am trying to promote this article to FA. Problems mentioned in the previous nomination for FA status include prose and references. ISD 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lead should be two sentances, with a new sentance for "stars comedian..."
Truthiness should probably include Colbert's comment: "I don't trust books, they're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Let's face it folks, we are a divided nation.... between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart."
The "wrist violence" section should be renamed "wrist violence and painkiller addiction" as the latter seems a parody of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycotin addiction.
Should definitely include a section about the White House dinner speech and President Bush's response.
It might be worthwhile to include a comment about Colbert's interview of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. It seemed to me that in that interview, Colbert slipped out of character to show his genuine personal admiration of Paul's perspective, but then went back into his schtick.
The Charlie Rose interview is superb, showing more about the character and also about the real Colbert. http://youtube.com/watch?v=OvLS4Jv6Tpw&feature=PlayList&p=969C7A105381484E&index=0
Happy to particpate in bringing more wikiality and truthiness to our understanding of this foremost flagaphile.
VisitorTalk 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a peer review of this article before submitting it for FA review. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This was recently upgraded to a Good Article, and I think that it can be an FA with a bit more work. I wasn't the main contributor to the article, but would be glad to implement any suggestions that others have. It is a unique and interesting topic that is not covered very broadly elsewhere on the internet.-- dave-- 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
November 11, 2006 Review here
March 14, 2007 Review here
December 23, 2007 Review here
I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter ( talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.
Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn ( talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.
Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn ( talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn ( talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.
Some additions I feel should be made include:
References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.
If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. Lara ❤ Love 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of unverifiable work has now been removed etc, not by me much. I was hoping to ask how else this could be improved in order to reach Good Article status. Also, does the Future section present any problems? Simply south 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps, BillC 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any further questions. MLilburne 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't want this article to be of Featured Article status. I know the criteria behind Featured Articles and know this band's relatively short background would not accommodate a Featured Article status article. I just want it to be a good article, an article that will befit the high quality of talent behind this group. And yes, I'm speaking from a biased perspective, but I do think that sometimes fans can create awesome things. Anyway, this isn't about fanhood, lest this run afoul of NPOV, but rather QUALITY. And that's what I'm aiming for -- a quality article. ( Krushsister 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
I made some minor edits, in order to bring the table of contents to the top, and to make the text flow a bit better. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert it if you want.
I've been having some minor conflict with an anon user who's introducing some of what I consider overlinking/redundancy/stylistic problems into the article. (Take a look at the history to see the full extent of the situation.) I'm not sure how to make 69.108.115.193's edits into better ones, but I don't want to discourage someone from editing; I think a peer review would be helpful so that somebody uninvolved in this conflict can step in and take a look at actual content. I don't think I need mediation or anything, but a fresh eye would be appreciated. Switchercat talk cont 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, this article still isn't the best, but I figured it'd get more response here than on the talk page. Switchercat talk cont 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to be referenced throughout.
It's unclear in places, such as: The invention of the mouse pre-existed the invention of the mousepad by about seventeen years - does that mean the mousepad was invented 17 years after the mouse? ...and published in 1979 - what (was) published in 1979?
Some of the sentences don't show encyclopaedic quality: The Corepad Deskpad XXXL, possibly the largest pad on the market, is a massive 90cm x 45cm. - the use of possibly doesn't inspire the reader to have confidence in the rest of the article. The use of "massive" is unnecessary (and I suppose slightly point-of-view).
The lists within the text are inelegant, not especially useful and incomplete so cut them down to the main ones (I'm looking at the ones of manufacturers and possible materials).
I think you've dealt with anon correctly so far, and should continue trying to talk to him, but also clean-up or revert his edits as necessary to keep the article decent. Trebor 20:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This article require cleanup :) Please help me ;) -- Genovese 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article recently became a Good Article. I'm looking for feedback that would make this a featured article candidate. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a very comprehensive article, in fact, I was looking for who to thank for writing it. I guess it's just an example of the positive side of Wikipedia (collaboration). :) 67.181.63.245 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This article reached the GA status about a month ago and now I'd like to know how it could be improved. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. No-Bullet 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope I could help, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems like it deals with many areas of the subject. Could you please provide some comments/feedback for how this article could be improved. Any help will be appreciated! Snailwalker | talk 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The biggest thing that stands out here (and also the most annoying to fix, thanks to cite.php) is the references; linking individual articles is good but the full citation should be written out, as static links can change/die/etc, and it is useful for people familiar with the field to see at a glance who or which paper is being cited. There are also some references in the text in the (Soandso, 2002) format, but they aren't and can't be linked to the refs list because the names aren't given. Other stuff:
Opabinia regalis 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work on this article, and it is currently listed as a good article. My perception is that it isn't ready for the Featured Article process; I want to find out what it needs to attain that status, but I realize that wasting everyone's time by nominating it for FA isn't the way to find that out. Thanks! Dylan 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to get this article really tight and submit it for good article review and status. Here are some things I am thinking it would be good to have reviewed for
CyberAnth 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope some of this helps! Seegoon 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope these are useful to you. MLilburne 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In my quick read I saw no mention of christian views on ecological concerns. Where is the debate (to use the language of Genesis) about the possible conflict inherent in human 'multiplying' and in exercising appropraite 'dominion' over creation? ( Just nigel 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
Lead, addressing issues related to failed featured article status. Sabar 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So much work to be done. I lost what I had written earlier. Everything I write will be somewhat hasty, so I apologize. Keep your citations behind your period and quotation marks. Put the intentions of either dueler before "The duel". Mention Burr's killer intention first. A sentence like "Burr's intentions, simply, were to mortally wound Hamilton." This would be fine. Then add your detail about him being a good shot, and wanting to shoot Hamilton in the heart, etc. Use your templates. Cquote can be used here: "rubbed his face, lips, and temples with spirits of hartshorn, applied it to his neck and breast, and to the wrists and palms of his hands, and endeavoured to pour some into his mouth." Hamilton revived a short time later whereupon he remarked on a still undischarged pistol in the pistol case and claimed that he had no intention on firing at Burr. Hamilton remained silent except for answering questions. The last of the letter says Hamilton informed Hosack that "his lower extremities had lost all feeling, manifesting to me that he entertained no hopes that he should long survive." [18] And here:"I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire."[21] And here:"General Hamilton says he cannot imagine what Dr. Cooper may have alluded, unless it were to a conversation at Mr. Taylor's, in Albany, last winter (at which he and General Hamilton were present). General Hamilton cannot recollect distinctly the particulars of that conversation, so as to undertake to repeat them, without running the risk of varying or omitting what might be deemed important circumstances. The expressions are entirely forgotten, and the specific ideas imperfectly remembered; but to the best of his recollection it consisted of comments on the political principles and views of Colonel Burr, and the results that might be expected from them in the event of his election as Governor, without reference to any particular instance of past conduct or private character."[11] So use them. The difference between "Background" and "Cause" is blurry at best. Either substantially differentiate them, or merge them. Your lead, which has already been discussed by my predecessor, is sloppy and the posterboy of run-on sentences. Again with the intentions thing: your coverage of the fact that in no way Hamilton planned on killing Burr is shotty. Please state this fact first, then cover details. Can we have a picture of where Weehawken is? Like you did with the shot of the monument by overview. Get the place of Weehawken like that, and find a suitably licensed picture of the monument. It's out there. -- Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead could use expansion. This is probably the most famous duel in United States history. It's certainly the only one to involve a sitting vice president. Greater depth on the background is probably appropriate. If I remember correctly, Hamilton actually received the greatest number of electoral college votes in 1800 and Burr was second. Hamilton broke the congressional deadlock by throwing all of his votes behind third place Thomas Jefferson. Then (I think this was subsequently) Hamilton campaigned against Burr's unsuccessful bid for governorship of New York State. It ought to be explicit that Burr actually spent the last eight months of his vice presidency on the run from felony arrest warrants in two different states. To expand the aftermath a bit, this duel is the origin of the rivalry between Columbia University and Princeton University (Hamilton was a Columbia man, Burr was a Princetonian). [13] Also, has historical analysis of the duel or its participants shifted over the years? Durova 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A failed featured article candidate. Needs a check on neutrality (frequently disputed, see talk page) and how this can best be improved. Further points of interest are if the terms zoophilia and bestiality should be in one single article or two separate articles as the terms are not synonymous as some people incorrectly assume and what images would be fitting for such an article as some see the current artwork as portraying a too colorful and unrealistic image. Any comment is welcome though! BabyNuke 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Old peer review can be found here --> Wikipedia:Peer review/Ilaiyaraaja/archive1
I request the help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Very excellent article : links that I followed are good & layout is fantastic ! one of the first things I noticed is how that the coat of arms looks to me like it could be more of a public monument. Is this perhaps part of its history ? Dharp66 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66
This article has been a GA for a month and a half. What improvements need to be made before it can be put up for FAC? In particular, thoughts on the "Criticisms and Responses" section would be appreciated. Thank you. - Fsotrain 09 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone much work in the last few months. As of June it only had one reference [14] it now has 52 of them and has been significantly edited, expanded and vastly cleaned up. It has passed GA and I am hoping to make it to FA soon. What I am looking for review on:
Thanks, - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
( help name my baby) 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Moved auto peer review by User:False_Prophet to the minnesota talk page for brevity
Nice article. Would it be appropriate to highlight the different regions: NW, NE, SW, SE? The fifth area, the Twin Cities metro is already well covered. They each have a unique contribution to the state. How about mentions of institutions like the State Fair and WCCO radio, which dominated broadcasting for decades? Isn't the Old Log Theater unique in some way? Longest running something or other? There are probably other examples. It looks like Crystal Sugar has no article and probably deserves one; it could be mentioned along with sugar beets, which perhaps should be linked (along with soybeans and corn). I especially like what has been done with the "Popular culture" section. It lacks the cruft that collects in so many other articles. Is it worth mentioning that Sears, Roebuck and Company got its start in Minnesota? (Probably not.) JonHarder 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Current Good Article, which I'm working on making a Featured Article. I'd especially appreciate any stylistic changes that need to made, as well as suggestions for content that may have been missed (it's a top-level article, and so has an enormous scope). Checking for NPOV in the controversy section would also be helpful. Daveydw ee b ( chat/ patch) 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Lots of thoughts/suggestions:
This is an article I would like to eventually nominate for featured article status. I have not done this before and am hoping that I can get some viewpoints from other Wikipedians as to its quality and make any necessary improvements before nominating it as a featured article. Thanks very much. - Jord 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I am considering eventually nominating this to be a featured article. Do you have any suggestions for improvement or other input so this could be made better? Also, a user brought up issues with prose in my previous FAC, so please comment on this article's prose. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Some comments from me:
And can you send another one over to Britain some time please? :-)
SP-KP 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Three days ago, the article on Russell Cave National Monument was quite small. I began reading about the topic and have researched it extensively other the past three days. I think the article is pretty good after the expansion but I would like the input of others. Thanks for your help. Leeannedy 13:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Leeannedy 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, this article was an Indonesian collaboration article, but it had not improved significantly. So since last week, I have tried to expand the article, of course with some other editors. I'd like people to comment on the flow and the content, as well as the quality of English used. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- I mo eng 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"It is arguably the most important foundation of the country's culture, including food and society..." is the first part of one sentence in the lead. I'm unsure of what it means, mostly because the phrasing is rather odd. I could guess, but encyclopedia readers shouldn't have to. There is also a {{fact}} tag in the lead: it, and the others, need to be replaced with inline citations to reliable sources. Thank you. - Fsotrain 09 04:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would suggest combining the "Protestantism in Indonesia" and "Catholicism in Indonesia" into one larger, more comprehensive "Christianity in Indonesia" section. About the only reason I could see for discussing the denominations in two different sections is the existence of Catholicism in Indonesia, which is part of another article series. But there really doesn't appear to be any reason beyond that to separate them out. - Fsotrain 09 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts...
But overall I think the article provides a good summary of the different religions in Indonesia.
Agne
12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Re FSotrain09 and Agne's problems about the separation of Protestantism and Catholicism , please take note that Imoeng is quite correct and should be taken note of!
They are considered throughout Indonesia as separate religious identities - not as parts of one - they actually usually have in many places separate "territory" of followers within the Indonesian landscape - they have a range of differences as to how they translate the bible and have separate liturgical usage- and to worry about them simply being separate denominations and to bother about why is not the role of the current article - there are indeed aspects of Indonesian religious culture that treat these communities as separate. If the article is to adequately reflect the reality in the Indonesian Constitution and practices of the last 50 years - they need to be identified as such! SatuSuro 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
(in the suharto era, when I travelled in Java - I was always asked "what is your religion" within the first two minutes - as the imputation of Indonesian citizenship (I wasnt one but had a kitas one time) at that time was that you must believe in god and therefore belong to one of the official religions - if you didnt you were atheist and therefore communist - many foreign travellers were naive enough to not adequately disguise their western secularism! It is my belief that such an epistemology (ie necessity to believe in god is what gained your identity card) was quite capable of sustaining a logic and practice that separates the protestant ffrom the catholic in the same climate. SatuSuro
I'd like to see the article become a bit more streamlined. In its current state, its very unpleasing to the eyes and looks very plain with all of the images and tables on the right side of the page. Perhaps some fiddling with size is also is in order.
Also, I'd really like to see something worked out for the first paragraph. It's extremely cluttered and is almost unbearably painful to look at, let alone read. In my opinion, the Airlines subsection should be moved up to its own section and reformatted, but I'd like some feedback on that.
Hopefully we can get it in shape enough to be a good article candidate! thadius856 talk 04:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
[6]*Please alphabetize the
interlanguage links.
[2]
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Eyu100 03:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I still have a lot of work to do about contents, language, and the lead section, but I'd like to ask Wikipedia's experienced contributors a few questions before I continue.
Thank you. Fred- Chess 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've now restructured into sub-articles. So it would be nice if you again went back to review it.... / Fred- Chess 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I also got another book, Tigerstedt's Svensk litteraturhistori, 1971 (fourth edition). Thorough and factual, imo. I've also skimmed through Göran Hägg's Den svenska litteraturhistorian but this is mostly treated as a curiosity in academical circles so I won't use it as a reference.
Also, I think that it is now time for comments about the language of the article (I said at first I didn't want that). So any comments about language, structure, references, images, copyediting, lead section, possible omissions, etc are appreciated. / Fred- Chess 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on History of Minnesota for a while, along with other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of Mulad and Appraiser. The article has recently passed good article review, and I'm eventually hoping to bring it to featured article status. I'd like feedback on the following:
I'd appreciate suggestions on these questions, or any other suggestions you can provide. Thanks! -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Skimmed through it and it looks quite good. Couple of thoughts: the many red links will have to be addressed for FA (you already knew that) and the lead is weak. The lead should summarize the whole article and probably should be a bit longer. The first sentence doesn't get the article off to a good start ("dates back" is redundant), but I don't know what to suggest. The first three people I thought of are not mentioned: Alexander Ramsey, James J. Hill and Henry Rice (who deceived the Ojibway into signing away their land). Highlighting the prairie pioneers by keying off of Laura Ingalls Wilder could work well for the article too. Did MN formerly do a lot of farm equipment manufacturing? Minneapolis-Moline, for example? Another way to beef up the history of agriculture is to mention Oliver Hudson Kelley and the Grange movement and subsequent develpments like the National Farmers Organization (NFO) which caused some tension in the 60s and 70s. Then getting farther affield, there is the decline of "Machinery Hill" at the State Fair (big equipment replaced by lawnmowers) balanced by FarmFest making its home on the Gilfillan estate near Redwood Falls (but that's original research!). JonHarder 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments, criticism or otherwise to improve this article are welcome. Thanks Globaltraveller 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like an issue of some importance or interest (at least in America). I'd like to know what I can help improve. SilverStar talk 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Soliciting feedback on this article, which I'm hoping to improve to FA eventually. The article has had a previous peer review here; it was listed by another editor when I was on a bit of a wikibreak, so unfortuately I was unaware of it and unable to respond to comments. I've improved the issues that were raised since then, so hope you'll give this a second look. Thanks in advance, -- Bailey (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I've gone as far as I can for right now. I do have more info, but I'm waiting on outside sources to verify it for me. I'm looking for others with more info on the subject or just those who feel the page could be laid out differently. How is my grammar? ( !Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 11:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC))
Feel this controversial article could still do with some real help. I feel it is biased in favour of AA. I am in an edit war, which is kind of pathetic. I would really like someone to review it, and if possible get involved. I dont think either I, or the other regular editors, are capable of being NPOV on this matter. PLEASE HELP 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really asking for a review for the path to featured article, but ways to improve this article. This article has a little bit of controversy, with a group of people claiming that AA is a cult, overly religous, it's validity, etc. I would like to find the best way to cover all aspects of this in the article, but it's already kind of long (with lots of great information). I'm looking for ways we can restructure the article, reorganize things, and make sure all points of view are addressed while still NPOV. Thanks!-- Twintone 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
AA has had accusations of being cult-like from a fairly wide variety of sources. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. If it is, then it is one of the less damaging ones (though that is not to say not damaging at all). I think a thorough examination of both sides of that argument would be useful. 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
AA does have some religious tenets, and the supreme court in America described it as such (as detailed in the articles "coercion" section). Similarly, Bill W's teachings are often held in such high regard that to question will bring a similar reaction to that of a satanist in an Easter ceremony. Read "AA Horror Stories" for examples of when these tenets have been corrupted and then exploited by cult like factions of AA, or look into the "Midtown AA Group" in Washington.
Interestingly, Bill kind of did imply that he had a "special cure" for alcoholism, with the following from the 12x12: " Any willing newcomer feels sure A.A. is the only safe harbor for the foundering vessel he has become." Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 35 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Could not agree more. Was hoping to get some "unbiased" (which excludes me!) editors to do a bit of work on the AA page. I would be happy to advise, as I am sure would other regular editors on the page. I think we could do with someone interested in learning more about the subject, who is experienced with wiki, to make this article give a balanced view of AA. 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Many AA members do state that AA is the only way though. I have witnessed it myself. It is well documented by others (Stanton Peele, Charles Buffe, The Orange Papers website). Comments in the big book imply it strongly, such as "you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer." or "At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else." 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Stanton Peele is at the extreme end of the academic community, Charles Buffe has only been published by 'See Sharp Press' (in the publishers own words: "a cause-driven small press" with a mission "to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism.") and 'The Orange Papers' website is one anonymous guy in his bedroom who hates AA. Of course this encyclopedic article doesn't read like their opinion!
Unfortunately this article is frequently marred by the insistence by a few individuals (who are easily identified by their refusal to sign in to Wiki, their repetitive insertion of conspiracy links and their contribution to Wiki being solely arguing on the discussion page rather than actually editing the article), that the AA article is biased unless it mirrors these conspiracy theories.
Ongoing Peer review would certainly be valued, but not all the comments from the previous peer review have been incorporated yet (the 'deeper structural' editing for example). Perhaps we could do with more editors and less conspiracy theorists! -- Mr Miles 11:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Half of that was in italics, and the link should be a citation. Why is that extra , I don't know. Fix that. I think I gave you enough work. Drop a message by when you're ready for more. Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the article comprehensive, well written. There is nothing on the Internet that could tell you more about Austin Nichols than this article does, I think! So, is there anything else I ought to do before I send it to FA? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 15:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
OTHER REVIEWS WOULD BE APPRECIATED Dev920 ( Please vote here) 00:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Things I noticed:
Other than that, it's looking pretty good. The refs are pretty thorough, it seems complete (although is also fairly short for FA - dunno if anything can be expanded a little) - nice work. Trebor 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Go on, review it. You know you want to... Dev920 ( Please vote here) 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
We want to know how RuneScape can be edited in order to attain FA status. It has already passed a GA nom.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has come a long way, and is almost ready for FAC. Please, lend a hand in polishing the article to Wikiepedia's finest standards. Aditya Kabir 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Urban layout" and "Civic life" are not well organized. The later has stuff that should be in the former. "Urban layout" on the other hand, almost solely focuses on three old mansions, which do not dominate the current urban design. "platform for all political-cultural movements" -- "all" is streatching it. "The Bangla Academy initiated the first Boishakhi Mela ... is also sponsored by major cell-phone and carbonated drink brands. " -- last part quite unnecessary
Look for similar stuff-- ppm 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have gone through the whole article and found some of the parts that should be improved. Besides, this article demands some of the points to be added in order to give it a complete touch.
Other than those parts, overall article is well written. Niaz bd 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This article need to be improved to the level of a featured article. Need suggestions.
Chanakyathegreat 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article looks quite comprehensive, but it is going to need both more citations and a very thorough copyediting before it passes FA (or GA, for that matter). One citation per paragraph is a good rule if you're aiming for GA status; you may also want to see whether there are any books on the subject, as it seems like you mostly have internet references (although some very impressive ones). You may want to have a native English speaker look the article over, as there are a lot of odd points of phrasing. Here are some copyediting points (not a comprehensive list):
I hope this is helpful. Best of luck with the article. MLilburne 17:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Could the whole article be reviewed??? Chris5897 10:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has a good description of history including sales status in other countries outside the US. Each model (generation) from 1982 has sufficient information talking about the changes made as well as the platform and engine. There are also plenty of pictures in this article. To me, this article seems ready for GA nomination. However, I want to know what really needs to be worked for a GA nomination and in the future, a FA nomination. Starcity ai 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone many improvements over the past few months, and is now fairly stable, receiving only a minor edit now and then. Please comment on anything that might prevent it from qualifying as a Wikipedia good article. Eventually I would like to see it reach Featured Article status. Thanks. - Amatulic 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Some sentences don't flow. "It has recently seen greater attention with the rise in demand for low-carbohydrate, low-sugar food alternatives, and is widely used as a sweetener in Japan, and is available in the US and Canada as a food supplement." It's hard to see what the main focus of that sentence is - it's sort of pieced together with double use of 'and is'. The first section is entitled "uses" but seems also to be a mix of history and science, jumping about different countries and dates. The facts are there but aren't presented very logically, in my opinion. Are the "health concerns" worthy of half the article (I'm not saying they aren't - I've never heard of the plant before and health concerns may be the main reason it's notable). The lead should reflect the whole article (and attempt to touch upon each section, however briefly) yet does not mention anything about the health concerns which is the majority of the article.
Trebor
23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I was hoping to use the peer review process to improve the Lostpedia article. It recently survived an AfD. Several editors of the article are new to Wikipedia and may not be 100% familiar with all the policies and guidelines. Thanks in advance! -- Jabrwocky7 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article on the history of the Tamil Nadu state in south India covers an extensive period of time - from pre history to modern times. Tamil Nadu is an ancient land with very rich culture and history. The length of the article may be a bit larger than that recommended, but I think the subject warrants such a length. I would like to request comments on improving this article further. Thanks - Parthi talk/ contribs 10:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Present: On going ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka resulted in the first Eelam War (1983-87) in 1983, following an ambush by Tamil guerrillas on the Sri Lankan army. The news of the ambush caused widespread outrage and a violent backlash against Tamils in the south of the island resulting in a large numbers of Tamils fleeing to the north, and from there to Tamil Nadu. The sudden appearance of over one hundred thousand displaced, embittered Tamils resulted in a surge of political support from the Dravidian political parties of Tamil Nadu. They exerted pressure on the Indian government to intercede with the Sri Lankan government on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The two rival Dravidian parties aligned themselves with the corresponding rival groups fighting the Sri Lankan government. The Indian government of Indira Gandhi supported the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka by sponsoring various militant groups. The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of 1987 resulted in the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed in the north of Sri Lanka and brought India directly in conflict with LTTE, one of the main Tamil militant groups. The deployment ultimately proved to be a failure and the IPKF was withdrawn in early 1990. Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister during this period was assassinated in May 1991 by an LTTE operative while campaigning in Tamil Nadu. This act and the war between the IPKF and LTTE caused a considerable cooling down of sympathy in the Dravidian parties towards the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.
Problems:
Here is what I'd include: On going ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka large numbers of Tamils fleeing to Tamil Nadu. The plight of Tamil refugees caused a surge of support from Tamil political parties. They exerted pressure on the Indian government to intercede with the Sri Lankan government on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The then-Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in Give exact date by an LTTE operative for his role in sending Indian peacekeepers to Sri Lanka to disarm the LTTE. This act and the war between the IPKF and LTTE caused a considerable cooling down of sympathy in the Dravidian parties towards the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.
Post-Independence Period
Just two small suggestions, which you can feel free to ignore if you think they don't add value to the article:
Meenakshi Temple
Just a minor suggestion for now. The caption under the Meenakshi Temple of Madurai says it was "built by the Nayak king". There are many sources that say the main body of the temple was started by the Pandyas, perhaps in the 13th century, and the inner sanctum of the temple is thought to be much much older still. Perhaps for npov, ...the temple, renovated by the Nayak king or something along those lines? Wubbabubba 09:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is a recently failed GA. Although the review was not terribly...detailed, it makes the good point that the article is very dense and technical. There's also the problem that I'm essentially the only author (before my first edit it was a one-sentence stub), and that's never good for either comprehensiveness or accessibility. Any thoughts from knowledgeable non-experts (or of course anyone familiar with the subject) would be great. (I'm guessing the tree rearrangements are a particularly sticky spot?) Opabinia regalis 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments on the page overall, with special focus on the plotline and references. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Following a concerted effort to make this a featured article, the drive slowed and refined editing has become stagnant. The authors come from mainly technical backgrounds and would appreciate feedback on improving it. To compliment the waste management section and ongoing recent peer review of incineration a peer review of this article would be welcome. Thank you for your help in advance -- Alex 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope some of this helps. Seegoon 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Article still needs a copy edit and I'm still doing some general work on it, but let me know if there's anything glaringly confusing about it, still needing a citation, or any other serious problems. -- W.marsh 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
After years of decline with abandoned buildings and high elderly populations, in more recent years the culture of Old Louisville changed Old Louisville has a changed culture. New residents were [are?] not just college students using the area as housing, but also young professionals who wanted [want?] to live in Old Louisville, whomwhich the Courier-Journal's Velocity weekly has reported see the area as a hip, emerging center of culture in Louisville. This change is reflected in numerous coffeehouses, restaurants and bars opening in Old Louisville in the 1990s and early 2000s targetinged at the younger crowd .[2]
Old Louisville is one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Louisville, as evidenced by the General Election results in 2004, where itthe residents voted for John Kerry by a 60% margin and 66% voted against a proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" by a 66% margin (which passed 75% to 25% in Kentucky).[20]
AZ
t
01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I found a new image on Flickr to show the art fair a bit better. Also I found a bunch of images on Flickr I didn't know where there, if anyone with a better eye for design than me wants to pick out some good ones to illustrate this article, have at it: these should all be CC-by-2.0 and usable by us -- W.marsh 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article seeks nomination for Feature Article.-- Magi Media 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I award you this condign and well-deserved barnstar for all your outstanding contributions to the many Biography articles - Anas Salloum 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
Especially on your amazing contributions to the Thaddeus S. C. Lowe article. Good job Mike! ↔ ANAS - Talk
Just need a review to improve the article. This is not meant as a review for a featured article candidacy. I just want to get it there - I plan for many peer reviews. Any help for improving the deployment section especially would be appreciated! Thank you! JonCatalan 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Only skimmed it briefly, but a couple of things stood out. The lead is a bit weak - it's too specific, doesn't give enough of an overview. One of the cites is to another WP article which shouldn't be done. The website in the references should be hyperlinked - check a featured article to see how they do it. The first 3 sections look quite good. Trebor 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Between 1939 and 1953 much of Spain's armour fell into disrepair due to its age, and the same could be true for the North Korean military.
are skirting the edge of a WP:NOR violation, and should really be either sourced (tell us exactly who has speculated thus), or removed. Again, congrats on the good work with this article! -- Visviva 07:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all in advance for your reviews and suggestions. I am seeking general suggestions for improvement with the intention of recommending this article for Featured Article status. I am the chief contributor to this article, expanding from a few line stub to its current look. Please be as brutal as possible, especially with suggestions for copyediting and reduction of any redundant or superfluous text (i'm notorious for that). I thought about first seeking good article status, but I feel that this article more appropriately meets the featured article criterion. User:Ruhrfisch had run the automated peer review script within the past 24 hours (located on the article's talk page) and I believe I have addressed most of the concerns raised by it. However, I am looking for further recommendations. Thanks again and I look forward to your commentary. — ExplorerCDT 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
portions that are struck out I think I've taken care of, as of this posting.—
ExplorerCDT
17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
[6]You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
AZ
t
22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have done some copyedits to try and fix minor typos and tighten it up a little - please revert them if they make errors. I have some suggestions that I hope to enter here later today as well. Ruhrfisch 16:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
More later, hope this helps Ruhrfisch 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - sorry I missed the Highlands. Here are my final comments.
A fine song, and I think this article's notability is deserving enough for it to reach FA status. Please dive in and offer your thoughts. Velten 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering submitting for GA, after, I hope, adressing all the issues raised in the previous peer review. Please point out any reason why I shouldn't submit it. :D Druworos 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Plan is to get this up to FA: It's a controversial article, but I've always been impressed at how well it's done. All suggestions welcome, though please don't just shout about howwe're all going to Hell. It tends to offend. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
True... it HAS undergone a certain drift in the wrong direction since I first found it. I shall try and redress this. Adam Cuerden talk 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for a bit. I think it's concise and well-enough written, but I want to improve the flow within the subsections and I'd like to improve the references and see-also section but I'm not totally sure how. I don't want to link to the group's website over and over again. I would like feedback and fixes from people who are totally unrelated to either the group or the school in general but who appreciate its significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmz5 ( talk • contribs) .
Looking for review help to get this to GA or FA status. A mcmurray 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How could it possible be improved, as I hope for it to get to FA status. Thanks, Kil o• T 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made some recent additions to the article, but I still would like to see some guidance on helping this article Featured. I have sent it through peer review twice, but the last one was responded only by a automatic script. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is good, but may still need expanding. I will try to expand it, but will need help. Thanks! Jmclark911 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that the references section of this needs a good clean, but any ideas on the article as a whole would be extremely helpful! HawkerTyphoon 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The automated peer review's most notable suggestion, is about the Lead. Per Wikipedia, they state that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."
Anyone care to dig in and give it a try? Lt. Dan 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the proposed new Lead:
Would you be kind enough to discuss , either here in the Automatic Peer Review page, or over on the poppers article Talk page, any significant changes you're contemplating before making them? This gives other interested parties an opportunity to comment before any significant changes are made.
In the edit summary for your deletion of the mention of RUSH being the most common brand, you gave as the reason for your deletion the following: "removed reference to Rush - is it the most popular? we can't prove it, as people are hardly going to keep records of buying the stuff!"
The reason I noted that RUSH appears to be the most common of the bottled alkyl nitrites was because when you Google poppers, or rush poppers, etc, it becomes readily apparent that it's the brand that seems to be the one most talked about. There are numerous mentions on web sites where poppers are sold that RUSH is the most popular brand. Also, the Wall Street Journal printed the claim in it's front page story on poppers (In the piece, they claimed that both RUSH and Locker Room were the most common brands). And, it's common knowledge that "Rush" is one of only a few street names for poppers; it's actually synonymous with the word poppers. When a brand name becomes synonymous with the category of product, then it's one of the more common brands, if not the most popular. This would hold true for any category of product.
IMHO the Lead should give, as a point of reference to what these products are, at least one brand name so the reader is better informed. RUSH is the most obvious brand name to list.
That's why I think the sentence should be reinserted in the Lead. Lt. Dan 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The lead is good. Consider adding some reference about recent upsurge in youth using poppers in a dance/rave context.The concern in the UK where poppers use among youth has resulted in the website www.iabuse.org . The use by youth appears to be popular because of the immediate light headedness effect and increasing in sensitivity to sensations of sound and ...like in dance music. While use tends to be adults, it is relevant that youth use does occur and in non sexual context. I look forward to the lead being restored. And then on to the current controversy about risks, research, and relevance, especially to gays, bisexuals, navigating in the context of the AIDS epidemic.
209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson 209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has apparently been getting a lot of needed attention from an expert in the field (certainly not me) but I thought it should get looked at by a broader set of editors. Is it comprehensible? Are the references adequate? -- Beland 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Previous Peer Review can be found here
The last review was over a year ago and the article is still good but is looking very messy and sprawly. I'd be very grateful for some further ideas about what we should do with this one. -- Spartaz 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Purge the gallery and put the images in appropriate places. Wiki-newbie 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Is Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan) ever going to be worthy of an article? If not, delink it. Check the other red links as well, the next one I saw was flight risk which seems unlikely to ever be made as well. It's quite long and, as you say, 'sprawly'. Could the information about specific country's policies and any of the other 'list' type information be put in their own articles and summarised in the main article? The gallery could go as Wiki-newbie says, and some of the images located elsewhere on the page. There are very few cites for the length of article, in particular the history has only one. It seems very disjointed as well, I think it should be cut back quite severely and only general information included, with as little country-specific stuff as possible (as there are too many countries to mention them all on the page, and to focus on particular ones is POV). Trebor 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of country specific articles. Perhaps some of the stuff can be hoved off there with links from the sections of the main article. Thanks for the advice so far. very useful. Spartaz 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Red Links can be de-wikified Doctor Bruno 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello I'm seeing if there is anything wrong with this article before I take it to Featured article candidates.I do think it probably needs more inline references.-- Team6and7 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article. With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV. In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective. Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Aude ( talk) 13:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good article so far, get some external links and sort out that neutrality dispute. Wiki-newbie 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article could use a little more of a conversational tone. I see this only because I have been critiqued for this very issue myself in the past. The article has plenty of facts and figures and all I can say is try to be more expressive...but what I like about the article is that is is to the point, without a lot of "fluff" and simple jargon. Just a few other points:
I'll see what else I can dig up.-- MONGO 07:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Have added the top 10 list of guns involved in crime. Strangely enough, semi-auto's are not the preferred firearms. Yaf 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Have added an historical perspective to article (assassinations and attempted assassinations of U.S. Presidents, along with a few other notables) that supports the view that gun violence is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. Yaf 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Done a lot of work on this in the last few mounths. There is talk of make this a FAC. I think it's best to give it a PR first. Buc 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has had a number of authors and is reaching a good stage for a wider peer review-- Alex 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is looking good. Overall, I think it needs a thorough grammar review. It also has several sentences that appear to have landed in the wrong section or have landed in the article twice. If possible, you may also try to use a few more pictures (some other than the exterior of a facility would also be good). Keep working on it but it is already looking like a good article.
Leeannedy 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am slowly trying to improve this article to the point where I can nominate it for FA. It is certainly an important article for a general audience, because it is one of the linchpins of the big bang theory. It is hard, because it deals with a somewhat technical topic that, while old, is still very much a topic of current research, particularly with recent developments in string theory. My feeling about the article right now is that it works well as a literature review, but it is still much too technical for the general reader. I also know that the last four subsections in "Theoretical status" could use some work (they are stubs), and the article is probably getting to be on the long side. More illustrations would help, but I'm not sure what to add: there used to be an image from a WMAP press release, but I'm unsure of whether it really teaches the reader anything. Any comments would be much appreciated: I sometimes feel a bit like I'm working in a vacuum. – Joke 03:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please review the above-mentioned article, in particular looking for weaknesses in style, cohesiveness, structure and factual or logic errors. Even if not immediately evident from the article's history, it is the work of many months. Thanks. -- Fullstop 10:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As for logical and scholastic content, I'm not even going to try because this goes right over my head. Seegoon 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this might be a bit different but i was wondering if i could get any feedback on how the cetaceans portal could be improved. Nominating for Featured Portal would be nice, but i am not really sure if this is worthy of that. Any comments would be grateful... chris_huh 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This has previously undergone an Peer Review here and two failed FACs here and here. It has since received copyediting from User:Coil00 and fmt-d by User:Heaven's Wrath (much thanks, guys!). I was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether or not this would pass FAC now - I'd rather not nominate it and have it fail a third time :(. Any comments feedback would be great! (especially regarding wording and language) Thanks! Wickethewok 22:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The puncuation implies that the three facts are connected, and lead from each other, but this is not really the case. Similar problems occur a number of times in the article, however they're easily fixed by breaking down the sentences. You do need to go through the entire text and weed these out, but once that's done, you there I reckon. Best of luck with it, it'd be great to finally see a DJ make FA. - Coil00 20:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into this article, and was hoping for some help pointing out any errors I have made or how I may be able to further better this article. Thanks. Pepsi2786 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The sections are often only a paragraph long, and the paragraphs are often only 1 or 2 sentences. I don't know how much info there is on this guy and whether any of it could be expanded, but otherwise some sections and paragraphs should be linked. The image does not have any documentation proving it is free use. Trebor 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Any and all input, please. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to see what needs to be done to get this list to featured list status. It looks as if it meets the criteria, but there may still be some fixing to do. T REX speak 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This simply needs an assessment of the article importance, as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Assessment#Importance_scale guidelines.
I'm not sure whether this should be fairly high, as it represents the main body of knowledge about the subject, or low, as a football club is of little importance compared to articles on war, etc. Fedgin | Talk 12:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
please write your reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senators ( talk • contribs) 07:28, November 5, 2006 (UTC)
This article was recently broken out of the Constitution of Thailand article due to length. I am primarily concerned with whether the standalone article is comprehensible without the legal/historical context provided by the Constitution of Thailand article.
I am also concerned with the general Good Article criteria, particularly whether the article is well written. Patiwat 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has seen a lot of expansion by a number of dedicated editors in recent weeks and I think it's approaching readiness for FA status. Any comments that could help move it along that path would be appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is solid, with interesting prose balanced with trivia and lists, yet it is only rated B class. Other than extra pictures, what does it need to push it to GA or even FA status? It is an important article about a club very important to English football, and should be improved in as many ways as possible. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I already listed the article for peer review, but received no comments. Eventually, however, Fly to the Sky did manage to climb to GA status, but now I want to make it FA. Please point out any flaws!! mirageinred 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was a COTW back in mid-August, and the editors involved made some serious corrections, cleanup and expansion of the article. I would like to bring this up to FA status eventually, but I wante d to come here first to get an idea as to where the article stands, as it is. Here are some things I am concerned about:
Thanks. Nishkid 64 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated this article as a Featured Article. Someone said I should request a peer review, on account of lack of citation. I argue that citations diminish the value of certain articles, such as this one. Your thoughts? Chris 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
OK -- time to close this down.
No cites = no Featured Article, apparently Chris
This is a self nomination - as I wrote most of the material here with additional help from User:Ackees. This being an under-represented area of wikipedia, the number of editors taking a look and making amendments or improvements is few and far between, so I could do with more pairs of eyes scanning the article to see how it shapes up. -- Zleitzen 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: this is a list peer review
I've improved the list greatly prior submitting it to FLC and while the FLC: adding intro, adding image fair use rationales, expanding episode descriptions (with the help of Peregrinefisher) and many other changes. However, the nomination failed, mostly per non-complete episode descriptions, fair use rationales and need for copyediting. I am currently fixing the major concerns (see my notice) and will submit the list again sometime this month. I'm primarily submitting this on peer review to get minor suggestions on list improvements and copyediting suggestions. Michaelas10 ( T| C) 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is currently undergoing some major changes to bring it up to a higher level of quality. Input would be appreciated about what content is relevant and what content is not, how to best section certain blocks of information, etc. If you can, if a peer reviewer has already made a suggestion you had in mind, make another suggestion to cover a different aspect of the article. We are open to new ideas. -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Trim previous Batman projects into the Development section. The Batmobile section should be turned into a 'Design' section too. You need more refs too: raid the external links. Wiki-newbie 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The influences section, in particular, needs cites. There are a couple of one sentence paragraphs that could be linked into nearby ones. In the plot description, however, the paragraphs might be a bit long and could do with being broken up. Could the soundtrack get its own page and the track listing go there? And I agree with the suggestion to merge cancelled projects somewhere else; I'm not sure it belongs in this article. The lead could do with being slightly longer too. But it's shaping up well as an article. Trebor 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I might've been a little anal about one or two things here, but overall I'd say this is a very good article. I think you need to focus on the prose in Plot, and maybe to expand upon Reception to offer a more in-depth analysis. Anyway, I hope I've been some kind of help. Seegoon 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Design section can stay where it is: it compliments the Production. Wiki-newbie 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is already a Good Article, but with the increasing amount of attention this article's going to get in the coming months, it'd be great to have some input from the peer review group on how we can really make this a shining example of Wikipedia's very best work. -/- Warren 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It starts well but comes very list-heavy and is a bit long overall (74kb). The "new features" already have their own page and I think too many of them are included in the main article as well. Could they be cut to the most important (judged by media response, difference from previous versions of windows, etc.), and preferably incorporated into prose? It seems very unlikely that this article can become an FA for a long while, as one of the criteria for that is "stable" - something this article necessarily can't be. But I agree this article will get attention and needs to be kept as good as possible. Trebor 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very fond of this article but have not been much involved in development. Page creator Magi Media has put some good thought and a heap of time into this important and intriguing subject. With his support, I've asked for this peer review, so we can get some eyes to help this along to the next phase (A-Class or GA status). For my part, I think the article could use a References section at the end, to collect important reading and better support the inline references recently added. I think the layout could use a tiny bit of tweaking. BusterD 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just generally curious to get a full list on what needs to be done for this article, esp for it to reach good article status at least. For a programme that manages almost 6m viewers it shouldnt be too hard :) RHB 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
WP:PARA's first collaboration of the month. Has undergone massive editing, but needs direction on further improvement/current standing before sending it in for a GA nomination. -- InShaneee 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
General Concerns
Modern background
Contemporary accounts of a "flying disc" at Roswell
"Claimed alien and spacecraft recoveries, cover-ups, witness intimidation"
Roswell as a myth: The skeptical response
The last two section look fine. Anyway, thanks for reading my personal suggestions which I want to be taken as advice not necessarily what I think must be done. - Tutmosis 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a biographical article on an Indian Classical music singer. I request the following:
1. Comments on the content of the article (is it thorough enough, what other aspects of the life of the subject of this biography could be included, etc.)
2. Comments on ways in which article could be modified to meet Feature Article requirements.
3. A rating for this article.
Thanks. ॐ Kris ( ☎ talk | contribs) 10:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. All done. Anything else? -- ॐ Kris ( ☎ talk | contribs) 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be great to get some feedback on how this article can be taken to the next level. It has previously been reviewed as part of the WikiProject Biography but needs some input to get it to meet FAC. Reviews very welcome Dick G 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The article's been a target of various nats from all over the world in the past. As the topic is quite controversial, revert wars and POVs from all sides were quite abundant. As I often do I decided to escape forward and expanded the article significantly, adding plenty of sources. This proved a right tactics as it seems that the article's been fairly stable since May.
Now then, during the GA nomination, one of the judges noted that the article ends abruptly, a remark I did not understand. Perhaps there are also other problems that need to be addressed, I'm not really sure what's more to add. Could someone take a look at the article and tell me what's missing? // Halibu tt 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:KaElin ( talk • contribs) .
I would like this to be a Wikipedia:Good Article and any advice or feedback on how to expand this stub article would be appreciated. -- SunStar Net 12:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Since this article is in a more or less complete state now, I am nominating it for peer review.
An earlier version of this article was nominated for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain (Reconstituted)) on the grounds of non-notability and non-verifiability. The result was "no consensus" (defaulting to keep). I then rewrote the article completely with extensive citations from primary sources (i.e., material published by Socialist Studies itself). Since Socialist Studies basically defines itself in relation to the Socialist Party of Great Britain, I've also cited primary sources from the SPGB, though since the SPGB has (with one exception) never publically commented on Socialist Studies, the references are generally useful only to draw comparisons between the two groups. There are virtually no other secondary sources with any information of value; though there are brief mentions in things like court records and police reports, Socialist Studies usually gets no more than a footnote in scholarly works (well, two footnotes in the case of Perrin's book). I'm therefore still skeptical that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements, so please comment on notability and verifiability issues.
I especially want comments on possible neutrality/POV issues, because the article documents a political dispute, because the bulk of the information comes from Socialist Studies itself rather than from third-party commentaries, and because the article has only one principal author (me). (I previously solicited commentary on the article's talk page and via a {{POV-check}} tag, but I think I may get a better response here.) — Psychonaut 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the article. User:Green01 6:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
Other then the lead, which needs expanding, I think it's very well written and informative. Well done. :) S.Skinner 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The following are the contentions I have with the article in the feild of WP:NPOV concerns.
“ | Some of these ex-members, comprising sixteen individuals, refused to recognise the expulsions and attempted to continue operating as the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which they claimed to have "reconstituted". | ” |
Possibly biased wording there, with the quotation marks.
“ | Socialist Studies adopted the object and principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and thus purports to hold that party's general ideology and stance on most social, economic, and political issues. | ” |
Purports could be a loaded word here. Perhaps "claims" is a little better here?
“ | Despite calling for the establishment of socialist political parties, Socialist Studies believes that such parties should not engage in political action which requires use of or active cooperation with "capitalist law" or "bourgeois legislation". | ” |
Should explain this a little more to be a little more balanced.
“ | Socialist Studies accuses the SPGB of coming under the influence of anarchist ideas and not sufficiently emphasising the parliamentary aspect of the socialist revolution. | ” |
This one is loaded enough to either require a significant citation or be retracted, IMHO.
Other than that, it looks pretty good. Kudos to the editors here. Hope my comments have been helpful. Cheers! -- ✎ Wizardry Dragon ( Talk to Me) ( Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
— Psychonaut 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just rewritten this article, which was a stub, and completely POV. I would like feedback to make sure that it is neutral and clear enough. I should add that the page has had a lot of random edits by anonymous editors, and the page could be the subject of an edit war--hence my desire to have it reviewed for neutrality. Thanks. Jeffpw 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the paragraph about est and Scientology needs to be expanded. I'll start working on that after work today. The later Developments section was full when I went to bed, with no less than 5 sources. It was vandalized before you looked at it. It is now reverted (though all your lovely copy editing was lost in the process). Thanks again. Jeffpw 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I initiate this last peer-review, just before submitting the article to WP:FAC. The article has already gone through two peer-reviews ( here and here), and two more independent reviews by User:Yomangani and User:Eusebeus. Please, check Talk: El Greco. The purpose of this peer-review is to collect any further suggestions or to locate any deficiencies I may have missed despite the repetitive reviews and copy-edits. Thanks!-- Yannismarou 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I switched all of your news sources from cite web to cite news, so that all of the information, including publication date, would be listed, alphabetically by last name of author. Because I didn't know how to use a different date format (I hate the cite templates), that meant I had to switch the last access date format on all of your refs. All of your references are now listed alphabetically, taking last name of author on news sources into account.
The division of References into
creates a problem with the citations list. When the reader needs to find full detail on a source given in the citations list, s/he should be able to do that by going down the References list alphabetically. But, because the references are divided three ways, that means the reader has to peruse three different lists in order to locate full information about a given source. I'm not sure how to solve that problem - I'd probably be happier to see one, combined Reference list, to make it easier on the reader. I'm not sure the reader needs to know if a source is online, in print, or whatever. (I haven't had time to read the article, and considering the holiday season, may not find time.) Sandy ( Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Some brief thoughts and comments:
Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Using my finest-toothed comb...
Except for the above points, this would tick all my boxes at FAC. Best of luck to you! talk to the HAM 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for the last few months after reading several books on the subject. I've been including information as I see fit, but before I develop the article further I would like to get some critical review of how I'm getting on so far.
In particular, I would like people to comment on the following:
Any comments or guidance would me much appreciated! Bobo12345 10:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am thinking about nominating either interpersonal chemistry or human bonding (or both) for FA candidacy. On the latter article's talk page, it has been suggested that it be a " featured article". Any comments or article critique (on either article) would be appreciated. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have during the past two weeks expanded the article on the Walls of Constantinople, ultimately aiming at advancing it to A-class or FA, and hope to get your input on it. Although there is information I still want to add, I would like to have your opinions, especially on:
Regards, Cplakidas 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not read the article in detail, because I don't have time today. But I'll hopefully come back tomorrow with more content- and prose-related remarks and a more detailed review. This initial and incomplete review is limited in just some technical issues:
Sorry for the delay, but at last I found some time to review in detail this article. These are my remarks:
In general, the article is well-written and informative, but it needs more citations. And, although the prose flow looks not bad, I'd strongly recommend a copy-edit by a native English-speaker. I think you could submit such a request in the Military History project or politely ask an editor you know and trust to copy-edit the text.-- Yannismarou 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario/archive1
The article seems to be nearing featured status. There should probably be a few more references; my question is, what else is left to cite? Also, is there anything other improvements to be made to this article to reach featured status? — The Gr e at Llama talk 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Seaborg is one of the giants of science and his legacy and stature seem to be growing. I would like to improve upon this article, and hopefully prepare this article for featured article status. I have removed a lot of the lists and bullets to create, hopefully, a more encyclopedic style. All constructive comments are welcome. Seaborg was listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as having the longest entry in Who's Who in America. Therein lies the rub. Is it too long, does it do justice to the subject? Is it well written and interesting? Is there enough of a narrative thread? Too much repetition between the main article and the subsections? We need some outside editors to help move this one up the ladder. Seaborg is a monumental figure in the history of Science and we need to make sure WP adequately covers him. Thanks in advance. Glenn4pr 09:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's generally good, but a few sections need work. The lead is messy and essentially just a list of the things he did and won. It could be split into 3-4 paragraphs, and have more of a structure in itself. It goes into too much detail: there doesn't need to be a list of all the elements he discovered, for instance. It needs some trimming so it only includes the most important/notable things. The quote at the bottom seems a bit out of place, can't it be included in the relevant section of the rest of the text? The early life section, particularly the second paragraph, is a bit stilted and just a collection of facts about him. "He kept a daily journal. He was a sports and movie fan. His mother encouraged him to be a bookkeeper." Those need some kind of relevance or context - what happened to the journals, did he ever pursue his interest in sports and music, did his mother's encouragement make any difference to what he did? And the last sentence there about being inspired could really do with a reference (of him saying that). Trebor 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Article is stable now that the Lost Experience is over, needs general feedback. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working tirelessly to get this to Good Article status. I'm unsure what else is needed to get it there, and I don't know of any prose issues (no one has done a copyedit). Please do not mention the lack of references in the second half of the Plot section - they have been ommited on purpose to make further editing (which is likely) easier -- TheEmulatorGuy 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Great work, some concerns:
The article is looking really good but note the copyright problem with the REX robot image. Good luck! - Tutmosis 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Note Article is now a FAC, its candidacy page is here
A core topic in biology, medicine, biochemistry and biotechnology. The article is intended to be a wide introduction and comments on both content and formatting for a future FA candidacy are very welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall this is a strong article on subject that is so broad it is difficult. I think a better job could be done identifying daughter articles but maybe they do not exist yet. I think when you are done this will be a great blue-print for other empires/kingdoms/domains and I hope someone tackles the other six articles as they are important core topics. -- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to double-check that it makes sense to treat the 3-domain system as authoritative. I haven't read anything particularly recent about prokaryotic relationships, but some of the most recent I have seen were skeptical. Gupta (1998) [10] and Cavalier-Smith (2002) [11] for instance argue that archaebacteria more likely developed from Gram-positive bacteria instead of forming a separate domain; Palaeos has a quick discussion of some objections. Obviously this is a minority point of view, but is it one that has since been discredited, or is it something we should acknowledge as a possibility?
In any case we should make sure none of the examples are Archaea. Right now Thermoproteus is mentioned, and it sounds like it's meant as a representative bacterium. I don't know if any bacteria are comparable, but if one exists it should be used instead, or the sentence should be changed. Josh 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has had a series of improvements made recently, and in order to imrove it further it would seem appropriate for other editors to comment and add their input to the article. I think that most of the sections could be expanded more, so suggestions as to what else to include in the article would be a huge help. Comments on improving the language/tone/style of the article would also be appreciated. Rossenglish 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made significant improvements to this page, given a limited amount of available information and a lot of available misinformation, such as claims that it is a one-man band. I don't know any information about the other band members, except that there is a picture in the album of them showing two keyboardists in addition to Free at the Moog, a guitarist, and two percussionists. This is the only picture of the band on the album cover, though it is fragmented several times. The liner notes' only mention of the band is that it consisted of Free in the studio with "a bunch of fellow players" and several references to them as a group. It took a lot of web research to determine that these were the band and not just the arrangers, engineers, and songwriters of three tracks, and that was done quite a while ago, and now the only hits I can get are for things I generated. I trust it has been adequately cleaned up since the request, whcih came before I got to it. -- Scottandrewhutchins 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope I helped. Seegoon 16:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
looking for some direction on how to improve this article. let me know what you think is missing, needs improvement, or any other ideas you have. thanks! Randella 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A well-written, comprehensive article on FA path. Comments/criticism welcome. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok you've cut/paste a lot of info from the mother article. While that is quite acceptable, you need a lot of in-depth information on this subject. "Fundamental rights" equates with "civil rights," "human rights," etc. You will need to dig up a lot of data on the different problems faced by people in India and what the government is doing or not doing. You will need to write about what has happened in states with insurgencies or similar law/order problems: Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, Tripura, Bengal, Bihar, Gujarat. Police abuse during the emergency, the Bhagalpur jail abuse, extra-judicial killings, rape in Delhi, etc. One important element is how "Fundamental rights" work out in courts. What judicial decisions, precedents and historical trends in judicial philosophy exist? How have governments worked on legislation and individual cases? And of course, the criticism from various sources. Happily, you have the 2 FACs of FR/DP/FD to guide you on the language, structure, grammar, etc. Rama's arrow 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has failed what was probably an unwise GA nomination, recently been rated as B-class in WP:BIO and had a previous PR. I feel it's at a new level now, with minimal sycophancy and plenty of citations. Any input whatsoever would be appreciated; I have a goal of this achieving GA status in not-too-long. Seegoon 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts:
*The second paragraph of "Genre" needs better referencing. At the moment, it sounds like original research.
It's not too far off GA standard, but still needs a bit of work. Trebor 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
An article on a Hilary Duff album that I've recently expanded. I've tried to make it as comprehensive as possible (including making separate articles for the radio singles) without delving into unnecessary detail, but I definitely think somebody unfamiliar with the article should take a look; my eyes have glazed over completely and I know I'm not able to notice problems. It would be great if anyone could provide suggestions on how to elevate it to good article or featured article standard. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to request some impartial reviews of the Sei Whale article to gather opinions of how the article can be improved and whether it meets featured article standards. The use of English in the article should be British English, so if you can hunt down American spellings of words and change them, that would also be appreciated since as an American myself, I don't notice them. Neil916 ( Talk) 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm practically the only contributor of information to this article in the last year and a half or so (most other contributors have only corrected typos, dealt with metainformation like categories and templates, and so forth), so I'd really like some outside input on how I can improve it to bring it up to Good article status. — An gr 18:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there does not seem to be a formal '+' addition symbol for adding text, so I will edit-in my reponse. I'm the guy who left the comment on Old irish phonology. My qualifications are in psychology, so I'm not a linguist, but I believe I have something to offer.
O Quiggin gives in 'A dialect of Donegal' almost 20 vowels and 20 diphthongs existant in the older speech only 100 years ago. While a lot has happened in the meantime, and of course, they were not all phonemic, I do think that due to the robust velar(ised) vs palatal(ised) distinction, the situation of consonants both sitting in or near the territory of vowels and passing thru them produces more vowel allophones than the 5 short and five long often postulated (above and beyond glides), and I feel these need to be covered in greater detail, if the object is to enable better pronounciation. The implication from many works on irish, is that there is a poorer vowel set that is actually the case.
If your articles are interested in the decay of the the phonological system, then the loss of fortis and lenis phonemics, particularly in the rhotics, and now, in the ls and ns (liquids as a whole -forgive me if I use out of date terminology). Also the use of labiodentals rather than the native bi-labials.
The article could in time be expanded to show how the grammar and one would suspect, the semantics are been altered to conform with english. Just today I read of the adverb construction 'go luath' been dropped to 'luath' when used in the sense of 'early' as in English the adjective has the same form. That would seem to me a strong influence from english that goes beyond the content of the article.
As for child studies, in the handbook from the Irish Institute for Applied Aplication of Linguistics, "Aqcuisition of Irish as a first language", there is the Donegal man Dónall Ó Baoill from Gweedore, I believe, with a short paper on bring up 2 kids in Dublin as natives. He also produced something about his own boy too, I think (if I can find it).
As for the Dublin prononciation, it is rank. ONe kid on the TG4 cartoon slot, voicing Superman's son, appeared to have no palatal quality at all. I would expect any native english speaker to have some broad and slender qualities, but this guy was so plain in sound it had to be heard to be believed, and in a language such as Irish, it was plain bizzare. You could mention how, to compensate, the whole phonological basis of inflection, in 1st declension nouns mostly, is changed from the consonants to vowel, as there is no dual set to use, so rather than 'rothar' /roh@r/ -->/rohir'/ for the plural and genitive singular, the same approximant is kept in both occasions, but the vowel changes. (Sorry about the transcription, but IPA does not work here).
As for sound files, I could do some till you get a native, as while not been a native, I ahve worked on the sound and it is quite gaelic in character
I will search for some published material on Dublin Irish.
"Donegal authors seem to be incapable of telling the difference between phonemes and allophones" -I agree. First time I looked at Wagner on Teilinn, I thought where are all these vowels coming from. However, I think the plan was with O Q. to offer a glimspe at a more greatly phonetic degree of rigour than had been attempted at the time, (maybe barring O Searcaigh, but I dont have his works on me).
Of course, it is not about pedagogy! Also, the comment on Dublin Irish was my own, but it was just a comment, with obviously little range in an organ like this.
Requesting peer review for GA or A-Class nomination.-- Magi Media 07:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You are very welcome to comment on this article. Is it already mature enough to promote it towards FA-candidate-procedure? Lear 21 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It generally is very good. I like the design and there are plenty of images to prevent it being too wordy. I'd say the two major issues are length and citations. At 69kb it is very long, sections may need to get their own subpages and be summarised - I don't think I'm qualified to judge which sections though. The citations also aren't particularly numerous. As much as I dislike judging an article on citations per word count (since it can and should vary depending on the article in question), there aren't a huge number. (Admittedly, it is one of those articles where almost every sentence could require a citation). Three examples (first 3 I found) where a cite is needed to support the claim:
*"Anyone who does not produce a valid ticket is given a 40-euro fine." FIXED
*"Core and fast-growing sectors are communications...and medical engineering." FIXED
*"Berlin is noted for its numerous cultural institutions, many of which enjoy international reputation. " (by whom) FIXED
Everything needed is there, just needs knocking into shape.
Trebor
22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Article | Total size | References | # Words |
---|---|---|---|
Seattle, Washington | 85K | 58 | |
Detroit, Michigan | 87K | 101 | |
San Francisco, California | 87K | 92 | |
Boston, Massachusetts | 68K | 25 | |
Hong Kong | 70K | 20 | |
Berlin | 73K | 72 |
Thanks for the comment Lear 21 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
**In addition, Babelsberg Studios and the important production company UFA are located just outside Berlin in Potsdam. - Important according to whom? Adjective probably should be stricken... FIXED
**Last part of "Performing arts" could use some touch-up. Ending paragraph is only 1 sentence. Last part of those orchestras reads like a list. FIXED
**Picture of the mayor could use a better caption. Also, may want to identify him as the one on the right :). FIXED
**Captions in general need expansion. (MyFest in Kreuzberg?) FIXED
Thanks for comment Gzkn ! That was very helpful. Some of the weak points are solved now. Thanks a lot Lear 21 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What bothers me a bit is that some parts of it read a bit like a brochure you'd find at a travel agency. Take the second and third paragraph of the lead section for example: it's just a listing of reasons one should visit or move one's business to the city. The poverty in the city (although, even in the economy section only the unemployment is mentioned) should, for example, be mentioned. Also: the most cited source in this article seems to be something similar to the brochure I mentioned. Although there's certainly nothing wrong with citing this source, using it to find information about Berlin is definately POV.
I also think the fact that Berlin and Germany wer divided after WWII should be explicitly mentioned in the lead section, since this is a very important event in the history of the city and readers, who don't know anything about German history, may wonder what East Berlin is supposed to be.(Done)--
Carabinieri
10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact sheet is an official and credible source, even though it is published for the World Cup. It also cites facts and figures in majority.The lead text is positively exposing the city´s character, citing very credible and recently published sources; UNESCO, New Tork Times, IHT, Newsweek. It reflects the international image of the city, which has been developed in the last 10 years. Lear 21 11:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that the fact sheet wasn't credible, I just think that if you use it you have to be aware of the fact that it's POV and you have to compensate that.
As to the lead text: I did not deny that the facts there are false or that they are not cited; I'm just saying that the point of this article should not be to tell how good Berlin is, but rather to give a balanced depiction of the city. And the article is not balanced right now IMHO. Another example for this is the quotes section. They are all complementing Berlin. I'm sure there are quotes by just as notable people making fun of/criticizing/etc Berlin.-- Carabinieri 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This page feels like its got potential, but it seems to be a bit stuck. Difficulty over possible systemic bias, a debate over how much info to publish on specifics of bomb disposal, and the like. If some new reviewers could come and add to it and also give some clear criteria as to what needs to be done to improve this article, it would be excellent. ManicParroT 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The main article is too short to introduce the overall topic. It defines the term rather providing an overview to the subject. Needs more footnotes. Needs context. You jump into the history too quickly before I really know what it is all about. I think it is fine to leave out the specific how-to's... Glenn4pr 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope these help. Seegoon 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a prime example I gave on the page about ignorant people adding where they shouldn't. FUSE is a firing device consisting of a black powder time-delay usually functioned by ignition. FUZE is any chemical, mechanical, electro-mechanical or other firing set designed to detonate the main charge or booster in a munition.
These are NOT interchangeable.
What Else Do Bomb Technicians Do? (changed to EOD Operators, a specific type of Bomb Technician) was taken from an entry in an encyclopedia.
The article has been peer reviewed. It was written by a peer.
-Shawn High Order1
The term "The Longest Walk" or sometimes "The Lonely Walk", was a term founded at the Felix Centre and 321 EOD and used by EOD operators to describe that moment you don the suit and make a manual approach. Its a reflection on how that short distance can seem a very long way when your walking upto a suspect device. There is a book by the title written by "Peter Birchall" and it uses a very famous photograph of an ATO in Northern Ireland making a manual approach to a car bomb under a religious sign declaring "Prepare to meet thy god!" " TheNose | Talk" 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Fuse is used in by the majority of NATO, European, Commonwealth & African countries to describe anything from a simple burning fuse, through to a complicated VT or proximity fuse on artillery or air dropped munitions. " TheNose | Talk" 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We have very little in the way of equipment, I added a short note on the invention of the wheelbarrow, but there is little else.
Perhaps Hook & Line, xray, pigsticks\ID (disruptors), these are all in the public domain a anyway and have been for about 20yrs or so.
I rewrote this article a few months back and - after several other editors made medium to minor contributions - it has stayed fairly stable. Now i want to work it up to GA and finally FA status and need comments on what it needs. Images are tough - there arn't many I can find without copyright issues. And I know the referencing leaves alot to be desirted - I was a 'noob' at the time. So that is the first fix... Any other comments? --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This article just achieved GA status. I am looking for any suggestions that can help improve style, readability, etc., in preparation for possibly posting it as an FAC. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I expanded and sourced the article recently and I believe it is on its' way towards FA now. However, I'm not a native speaker and the article should definitely be reviewed by someone who is. Besides bad prose, there's probably some weasel terms here and there, some statements that could do with a reference and so on. Thanks in advance for any comments. // Halibu tt 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This nearby star is somewhat smaller than the Sun, and in the past has been the subject of SETI searches. Recently a thick dust belt has been discovered in orbit. I'd like to bring this relatively short article up to GA status, but first I'd appreciate a peer review to look for any deficiencies or potential enhancements. Your comments would be helpful. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just rewritten this article and intend to nominate it for FA soon, so any comments for improvements would be appreciated. Yomangani talk 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
questia2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
I created this page a few months ago. I consider it to be solid in its prose and complete in its content. References section is short, but it all came from one (a book), and there's a web site to back it up. Hoping to get this to featured status (incidentally – would it classify as a featured list?). Thanks. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is an article which I originally created and worked on regarding one of the more notable episodes of the TV series M*A*S*H. It achieved GA status after about a week and a half on Wikipedia, and I had a couple of questions regarding what can be done with it. First of all, since this is a shorter article, and one on a specific episode of a TV show, would this be a suitable candidate for FAC? The article is researched well in my opinion, and has 20 citations from 10 sources. And then, secondly, if this article is suitable for FAC, I was also wondering what improvements can be made or any suggestions you might have. Thank you very much for any and all advice and help. - Hotstreets 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
On a sidenote, I have also fixed what automated review suggestions I thought applied to the article. Once again, thank you very much for your advice! Hotstreets 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article about a Category 5 hurricane had been greatly improved in the last few days by User:Hurricanehink and is now a GA. What is needed for it to become an FA? CrazyC83 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've recently expanded and copy edited this article, and I'd like to nominate it to WP:FAC. Before that, I'd appreciate any comments on it. Are any terms too vague as to warrant explanation? Does everything flow well? Thanks for any help. — BrianSmithson 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There has been much less development of fungi pages than of many other collaborations i have been involved with. I figured Amanita muscaria was a page that could one day be a FAC though needs alot of polishing! I figured placing it here was a good starting points for ideas as I felt a bit at a loss at where to continue. Cas Liber 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(tricky this. I would rather link to other mushroom pages than have images of related species on this page as there are other desirable images to have - odd colour forms/art/etc. I do agree about highlighting differences Cas Liber 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Opabinia regalis 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The layout of this article is all rather messy, as is the extensive list of Pop Culture references. I'd like to see other's view on this. I think if this article was worked on enough, it could gain Featured Article Status. Nautica Shades( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
What do all of u think I can add more to enhance the quality of the article? Help me.
Amartyabag 09:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments. Please try to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. There should not be sections like "Places to See" (can be incorporated in Culture, History etc), "Hotels".
Also, the article lacks inline citations. The article won't survive an FAC without those. Anyway, a really commendable effort for a town that does not probably have good number of web resource to work on. Keep it up. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Good work so far. I recommend a copyedit as some of the prose is awkward (Sport for example). Phrases such as "In course of time, Cooch Behar has been transformed from a kingdom to a State and from a State to the present status of a district, and Cooch Behar its district headquarters." feel awkward. Lead needs a little cleaning up as well. Some of the redlink subjects may already have articles; for example:
Besides mainstream Indian Television Channels, the town also receives Nepali Television Channels and Bangladeshi Television Channels.
There might be a article listing the television channels of those countries, but not necessarily under that name. CloudNine 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Others" being:
I'm grouping these togther because they are all very similar in format and content, and so any comment which applies to one almost certainly applies to them all. Their peer-review sub-pages should re-direct here. I'm seeking general comments and sugegstions for improvements, in particular answers to questions like:
For the record, the SK list is former featured list candidate ( sub-page). It failed due to insufficient support.
Thanks in advance for any comments! Tompw 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The Ziff Davis article has been on clean-up for about a year, and they are a pretty big company in the internet technology news field. I've tried to make some improvements in the past hour or so, and I'd like tips on how my fellow editors and I can improve it further. - CaptainAmerica 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Relisting for peer review, as I received no response last time. I'd really like for someone to give this article a thorough review, if not, a short note pointing out some obvious errors. Input on the talk page is limited, so please, any input will be much appreciated. Kind regards, – sebi 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the advertisment tag isn't a good start.
That's all I've got for now...I've watchlisted this page, so ask any questions :) Giggy Talk 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:19, 14 August 2007 (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)
Need recommendations on what could be added to improve the article. Mfields1 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As I've said in a previous PR, Big Brother Australia articles don't get as much attention as other Big Brother articles, so any opinions or suggestions would be much appreciated. jd || talk || 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel this is a decent bodied article, that now needs a review to perhaps check on its writing style and what further information could be given. Is it possible for it to reach featured status (i.e. how close is it and is the subject notable enough to have enough relevant info?) -- Robdurbar 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I really feel this article could go all the way. It just needs a little push in the right direction. -- Ppk01 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Peer review prior to a month-long editing collaboration has been requested. Thanks for all your comments. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 October 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)
Make Way For Ducklings is a children's book set in Boston, Massachusetts. As little as a month ago, the article looked like this. With a little bit of research, ample information was found about the book, its sales, its history, and critical and cultural reaction. I believe this article would make a great FA, but of course, I would love a peer review. A review is especially important, as there are not currently any featured articles on children's books. Thank you so much for taking the time! — Scm83x hook 'em 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The Silent Hill film page has been GA for a few months now. The editors all did a great job and I'm looking to push its quality up higher, possibly to a higher rating or FA. I'm looking for any and all feedback and comments regarding the article.
Previous Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Silent Hill (film)/archive1
Plot is overlong. Move cast information and any minor stuff to a new section, ala Star Wars/Lord of the Rings articles. WikiNew 10:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Lead needs expansion. Quadzilla99 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just read the article Russian language that is a FA. I was thinking of improving this article to a similar quality, I am open for suggestions what to do. Thank you in advance. -- Ton e 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please comment on how this article can be improved. Thank you. -- NE2 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In section #2 History, I'd suggest that the year 1927 be referenced in the first sentence so that users don't have to click on the 7ref.
Dharp66
20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66
Please give suggestions to make this article better. Any merging? Separation? Style Tips? -- TLW 07:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me your opinions on the content of the article, and any improvements I can make. If you are going to edit the article yourself, please list what change(s) you made below. Thanks very much.
Dhastings 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This is my best article, please review it. Showmanship is the key 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment The article must clearly define the geographic boundaries of North America. Joelito ( talk) 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
A few things (nothing personal!):
It's a promising article however. CloudNine 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam
Kurzon 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The GA underwent a new part of edits. Feel free to indicate what should be done generally and added further. Thanks. -- Brand спойт 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This article was a recent Wikipedia:Spotlight collaberation. We think that our changes have improved it enough to make it nearly ready for featured. We removed large sections and placed them in their own articles. Thank you for your consideration. Bastiq▼e demandez 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be unpopular with my Spotlight friends... I can't see GA yet, because I'm not fond of the references list. I'm picky, I'm allowed to be here. Feel free to disagree. I want to see all cite.php based references. *nod* Other than that, go ahead. Oh, can we stuff an infobox in there? I like infoboxes...pretty... :) ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I request the advice and help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it very interesting and some good information about the spelling of Viet Nam, the country. I'm trying to determine the origin of the spelling: Viet = People, Nam= of the south, meaning the Vietnamese were not the people of the north, the Chinese.
The one-word spelling seems to have come from Western journalists sending telex messages. Charged by the word, Dien Bien Phu became expensive, as did Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Da Nang, etc. To cut costs they made one word, the style manuals picked that up, and it stuck.
The Vietnamese are a humble people and would never tell a foreigner their spelling was incorrect. When they use the name "Vietnam" as mention for Nam Dan, it's simply a case of the Vietnamese knowing Westerners (mostly Americans) wouldn't recognize or understand the proper spelling, so they continue the myth and continue to make money.
For myself, I'm using the term Viet Nam, as the older people would. Younger Vietnamese might use one word, and the Viet-kieu (overseas Vietnamese) have been raised with the single word version. That's all they know.
Using Viet Nam recognizes the original and local spelling, and begins to offer Americans a new look at healing from the American war. The one-word name is associated with the war, and the national psyche immediately interprets that name into emotional issues. It’s like a case of national PTSD. I believe with a new (which luckily happens to be correct) spelling, Americans of the war era will develop new emotions and appreciation for the country, and slowly leave the war. With a new war in our lives, we need healing from the past in order to better cope with the trauma and lies of the present. Thanks for any discussion.
Thanks,
Ted
and links to several sub-articles ( Vietnamese cuisine, Vietnamese music, etc.)
This article became a GA, and I want to know how to improve it so it can become a Featured Article. Any tips are greatly appreciated. -- Esteban F. (con.) 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Resubmitting for peer review. Recently I've been adding citations and cutting down the fancruft. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what could be improved or expanded, notes on the interestingness of the writing and also whether the article meets Good Article status. - kollision 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A remarkable Victorian lady who was born as a mixed-race free woman in Jamaica when it was still a slave society. She practised as a "doctress" in Jamaica, Panama and the Crimean War, and is sometimes called the black Florence Nightingale. She disappeared from public view after her death in 1881, and has only re-emerged in the last 20 years. Her life story is now taught alongside that of Nightingale in British primary schools.
I am going to be adding further references (particularly from the main source, her autobiography) and there are some academic sources that may be fruitful (details on request). Any comments would be welcome before I take this to WP:FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know whether I should add anything; I plan to use this as a general template for other routes. Thank you. -- NE2 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to hear suggestions on bringing the article to FA or A status, including prose, styling, sources, etc. Also if anyone has further sources for interviews please provide them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is very good, and I want to submit it for Featured Status soon. What does it need to be at FA quality? Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 05:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Following several complains about the abysmal state of the previous version of the page ( [3]), I tried to "clean-room" rewrite it to the current version. It's a big enough change that I'd appreciate more sets of eyes checking to see that I didn't inadvertendly make it worse ;). More specifically, there are a few concerns I have:
Anything else that comes to mind I'll listen to and see if they can be used to improve the articel. 68.39.174.238 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Bookgrrl sez: Definitely better, good work! Couple of comments:
<ref>{{cite web|title=Mather, Increase. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.|publisher=Bartleby.com|url=http://www.bartelby.net/65/ma/Mather-I.html| accessdate=October 12|accessyear=2006}}</ref>
This is still a work in progress so I'm looking for suggestions whether of content or style. I'm fairly new around here. BTW, as an aside the article wasn't my idea - it was pointed out by a friend that though Scott was mentioned on many pages he didn't have a page. I thought to go about making one and had to seriously prove I wasn't being vain. FYI, this apage is about a comic book illustrator-- Smkolins 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
So the next challenge - the bibiography.... On the one hand it only makes general reference to the source(s) of data and on the other hand isn't complete. Anyone got a good example how to do this?-- Smkolins 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've really been working on this article, adding information form what seems to be the only extensive non-Arabic source (the book by Avi Jorisch). I am planning on adding more info from the same source, but I thought I'd get some feedback here first. I was especially hoping for feedback on sections 1 (history), 1.1 (banning of broadcasts), 2.1 (programs), and 2.2 (religion and politics). Those are the ones I mainly worked on.-- Carabinieri TTaallkk 11:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Nasrallah should be kept in the infobox, because according to Beacon of Hatred by Avi Jorisch (pg. 20): "it [the Lebanese Media Group, the company that owns al-Manar] is operated by Hizballah members, reports directly to Hizballah officials, and takes its marching orders from Hassan Nasrallah's office." Jorisch cites an "Interwiev with Middle East expert granted to author on condition of anonymity" as well as this article in the Daily Star. I surely think Nazrallah is a key person, since he is the Secretary General of the organization that seems to control the tv station.-- Carabinieri TTaallkk 15:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
All images needing Fair Use rational were tagged, and redundant text was removed. Requesting new peer review as points from last have been fixed. 123wiki123 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This really isn't about the article, I'd like to know what others think of (mostly) my writing style as far being encyclopedic is concerned and where I (and the article) could use some improvements. akuyume T C 05:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Minor actor, still could be FA quality though. What needs to be added or changed to get it there? Judgesurreal777 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article presents information about U2's 1983 protest song and single. It achieved good article status in June. Since then quite a bit has changed ( diff), and I think it's time to test the waters here to see what needs to be done next. Some questions I have for general editors who might not be self-proclaimed U2 experts (as most of the editors of the article to this point have been):
Basically, I think it's pretty good, but it's been combed only by a group of U2 fans. I'm looking for the opinions of outside Wikipedians, I suppose. Thanks! McMillin24 contribs talk 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In the lead, I find two substantiation (sp?) problems. "The song's musical style can be considered militaristic..." begs the question, considered by whom? If the answer is critics and/or fans, that needs to be cited. On the other hand, if the answer is the article writer, we should not ask readers to accept our artistic interpretations, so a rephrasing would be in order. Likewise "It is considered by some to be the ultimate protest song by U2 and has become one of the band's signature songs." Who are these "some", and can their considerations be referenced to reliable sources? Other issues: please convert the "Cultural references" section into prose, per the embedded list guideline. And finally, consider a transwiki of the Bono block quote to Wikiquote. You have done good work here! - Fsotrain 09 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this list is useful (although there could be even more blue links), comprehensive (more so than the Norwegian version it was based upon) and factually accurate (good references). It is also stable and uncontroversial. I also reckon it is well-constructed, but I would appreciate feedback on the table - is everything understandable? The lead section provides a good background and overview, I hope it's not too long.
The table of contents criterion is not applicable to this list. Also, I don't know what images would appropriate here. Punkmorten 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this page is of good quality, possibly good enough for Good/Featured Article status. I have requested this review to point out any flaws that may need to be amended/removed entirely, before any nominations take place. RMS Oceanic 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A groundbreaking film, both in story and special effects. Any tips please? Wiki-newbie 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
So just the two? Wiki-newbie 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I am too new to the scene to advise you on formatting and house style, but here are a few comments on content. You have done very fine job on the Synopsis, although arguably it is over-long. Conversely I was disappointed that the 'Influences and interpretations' section was so short. You note that 'The Matrix makes numerous references to recent films and literature, and to historical myths and philosophy including Messianism, Buddhism and Gnosticism'. I would have been interested either:
In a few sentences outlining the comparisons between the Matrix pantheon and these schools of thought, and including both Vedanta, and Advaita in the list. (Especially the latter: 'Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal'), or
At least pointing to some such discussions along these lines elsewhere. If The Matrix has a value which is more than mere entertainment it is surely in bringing these ideas to a mainstream western audience, even if they are largely unaware of the parallels. Its only an opinion of course, but this to me is more pertinent than your assertion that in the 'first metaphor is hidden the most profound meaning of the entire film.' Ben MacDui 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
In 1993, Carrie-Anne Moss appeared in a short-lived science fiction television series called Matrix.
Good work so far. As a fan of the film, I'd like to see a good an article as possible :) CloudNine 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on the significance of names needs to be sourced - otherwise it seems like original research. Trebor 10:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just looking for some feedback. I've added a ton of pictures and added info about the major exhibits. I'd also be interested in any other good zoo articles on WP. The best I've found is National Zoological Park (United States).
What didn't the article tell you about the omaha zoo that you'd want to know? Cburnett 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just came by to see what I can do to improve this article. Although it is questionable whether it will reach FA status, especially due to a lack of information (unlike the more successful LRT and MRT articles, which are FAs already), it will be nice if I can get this peer reviewed, even for this article to reach GA status. Any comments (and additional resources) are highly appreciated. -- Sky Harbor 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get this article ready for the featured article consideration. Comments are appreciated. -- Zonerocks 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I deeply appriciate your help. I will get down to it quickly. -- Zonerocks 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, what a gobbledy-gook babely mess. Just started to fix it, doing a side-by-side comparison with the German. Not a registered user (yet?) or frequent Wiki contrib (maybe my 2nd or 3rd) so there's typos, errors of link usage, and various other mistakes.
Since I know enough German to fix the text, I hope you agree with my strategy of giving that priority, to the point where I'm (for now) going to leave obvious typos, errors of link formation, bolding etc (which I'm still learning by observation) to others, in favor of translation work, which is something I can do. (If you don't agree, let me know, I'll change tack.)
Got thru the first 3 paragraphs. This is gonna be a ton of work, not promising to do it all, but will do what I can. Kudos to the Germans, by the way, for a good article. Mathglot 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This article just went through the gauntlet of Wikipedia:Spotlight collaboration. Here is a before and after. Wowee. Anyways, sources should all comply with cite.php, and there are sections that have their own articles (i.e. Northwestern Passage). Enjoy, hoping to bring this on to be a GA or FA. JoeSmack Talk 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway other than that, a wonderful article and I'm glad Spotlight turned out to be so effective. You guys should be proud. - Tutmosis 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well it's a decent start, but frankly this article needs more development. Here's a few comments that are hopefully of some use:
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Plans are made to have it copyedited, and the issues on the to-do list are being taken care of. However, constructive criticism from the peer review folks before FAC never hurts. Any suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. Would this qualify as a good article? Please let me know what can be done to improve it. b_cubed 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Good luck. drumguy8800 C T 04:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking like its ready for FA just wanted to get some opinions and have the PR bot run over the article to check for any minor issues. Gnangarra 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in learning what can be done to improve the article. As a member of the church, I know a great many details about it, but also run the risk of creating a non-neutral point of view. -- Scottandrewhutchins 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Contributions requested are
I am hoping to nominate this article for FA within the next few weeks, but I believe it still needs some work before going there. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions so I can take care of them before then. — ptk✰ fgs 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Tell me anything that could make the article HSV Senator Signature a better and more injoyable one. Please fell free to add stuff or contribute to HSV Senator Signature, but make sure to add your references.
Um, you don't appear to have added any references, which needs to be done. It also focuses almost solely on the history of design - there's nothing on sales, popularity, critical review, people involved in design, etc. Trebor 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've written a comprehensive and detailed article here. But I think I may not have integrated it well or just been too idiosyncratic in places - it hasn't been edited much by other people (or at all). It's a really important topic in history, so I think it deserves good solid coverage. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, after getting The Fray to GA status, I decided to take it upon myself to give one of my other favorite artists that same distinction. I beefed up the article with sources galore (btw, if "References" appears blank, that's a bug with the gallery tag that will hopefully be resolved soon) and some more information about his life, but prose is still my weak spot. If you have any suggestions for how to expand the article, I'll gladly listen to them as well. Basically, I need someone with great English skills to do a copyedit of the article. Thanks in advance :) Teemu08 06:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Past review(s):
Archive1
Resubmitting the Sparks article as it has been very stable for a long time and requires fresh eyes for its development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos ( talk • contribs) 09:27, October 21, 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
To do (based on comments below - please correct/add to)
-- KaptKos 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
– Heav e n's Wrath Talk 18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions for ya, nice work so far.
Hope my suggestions are useful. Cheers! Wickethewok 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice article, enjoyed reading it. Just a few suggestions:
<ref name="X">{{cite web | author= X| year= X | title="X" | work=X| url=X | accessdate= October 21 | accessyear=2006}}</ref>
format for all refs.Other than that, great work! - Coil00 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My impressions:
The rest of the article looks much better formed in comparison, so I mostly focused on these sections. – Unint 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started and working on this article since October 3 (first day of the incident). All kinds of comments will be appreciated, also contributions will be great. My biggiest concern is about article is about hijacker(s) part. At first press thaught that there were 2 hijackers, and in references and reports its like ANSA reported that police detained both hijackers. What can i do about these parts, i guess best way is using as plural because at that time all presses were thinking there were 2 and reporting like that. Thanks -- Ugur Basak 00:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This page undergone an extensive rewrite since it's last peer review, mostly by myself, and I could really use some feedback on issues such as layout, flow, understandability, length, ect...
Thanks so much to anyone willing to read this article-- DO11.10 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (Ignore the <ref> tags above, this was generated mostly by JavaScript) Thanks, AZ t 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the major limitation of this article is its massive length. There are already a lot of subarticles, but you could make the TOC a bit more manageable by not having quite so many subsections - four layers deep is just too many. The subsections of "phagocytes", for example, could all be merged up into a few paragraphs in a single section; just because something has a main article doesn't mean it needs its own header and main template. Also, I'd strongly suggest creating intermediate-level articles on adaptive and innate immunity, which would shorten this article and make it more readable.
Other than the length, the content is good, though it could use some organization. The early sections are very listy and need prosifying (this will lengthen them, which strengthens the argument for splitting the article). There's also a couple of images that could be improved - for example, the image of a dendritic cell is too cartoony; a more detailed drawing or an image of a real cell would be more illustrative.
The references also need work. The extensive reliance on textbooks isn't so bad (though all those little notes to Immunobiology might better be formatted as citations of pages/chapters in a notes section, with the text listed in a separate reference section). But referencing other Wikipedia articles is generally bad; importing the relevant references makes them easier for a reader to track down. There are also a few uncited statements floating around; "B-cells may be named for the bursa of Fabricius, an organ unique to birds, where the cells were first found to develop" stood out. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There is alot more work to be done, and I'll be happy to help when I get the chance. Unfortunately I sort of have my hands full at the moment. Hope these help; expect more in the near furture. – Clockwork Soul 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, so many great suggestions! Thank you both for your very helpful ideas. I have been reading up on WP:SS for a while, I as guessing that this would be the best way to split out Innate and acquired, do you agree?
It is funny that you mention the Bursa part... there was apparently a (somewhat) nasty discussion about that before I began editing this article, which is why I hesitantly left it in.
Great idea about the refs, although I also own Janeway 6th edition and Kuby, which basically has much of the same content, and I could include those as references also, I just really like the idea of pointing to online textbooks.
I actually did have a section about the complement system in the article, but I felt that a)it was difficult to find the right "place" in the innate system and b) that the article was getting too long, which I can see, other agree with. It appears that I will need to split the article. I think that then I can really give the complement system and hypersensitivity/allergy the attention they deserve.
How do you find the original piece on the complement system? Any suggestions, however small, would be appreciated. The complement system is is really not my forte.
Complement System
The complement system is a biochemical cascade of the immune system that helps clear pathogens or mark them for destruction by other cells. The cascade is composed of many small plasma proteins, synthesized in the liver, primarily by hepatocytes, which work together to:
Elements of the complement cascade can be found in many species evolutionarily older than earlier than mammals including plants, birds, fish and some species of invertebrates.
Thanks again for the great comments-- DO11.10 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at improving this up to Featured Article status (it's currently at GA) - any suggestions on what needs to be improved upon, clarified etc. will be appreciated. Thanks, Alexj2002 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking for ideas and suggestions on how to improve the article. Perhaps one day for FA status. The Filmaker 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get this article up to Featured Article status by the end of the year. I know references and such will be needed soon, but I'm more interested in obtaining feedback on how the article might be improved in terms of things like clarity, layout, consistency, WP:MOS, etc. Feedback (positive or negative) appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to bring the article down but give suggestions. Good luck. - Tutmosis 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the lead needs to be expanded in order to fit in with guidelines at WP:LEAD. Titles such as "What about the DuMont stations?" seem a little chatty to me, and more inline cites would be nice. Interestingly enough, if the article was to get to FA status, it would be the first article about a television network to do so - but crib some tips from other GA network articles. CloudNine 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Listing nomination nominator didn't complete fully, and notifying him. I think, generally, any comments would be appreciated. How the article could be improved, or if there is something that might need explaining in simpler terms. – Ch acor 04:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review for breadth of coverage, spelling/grammar errors, and the general writing style. - Dozenist talk 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Overall the article is very good and comprehensive. – Outriggr § 05:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Animals. You knew this was coming -- yes, they're uncommon in companion animals, but what about other animals? FR says that for "For most non-human mammals, the presence of caries is evidence of bad general health and nutritional deficiencies." No citation is given there, but this needs to be addressed.
2. Prevalence in developed World You talk a bit about them being more common in North America and Asia and less so in Africa. It would be nice to explore differential rates in different developed countries. And when you say:
this holds only for California. Is it the same world-wide? Significantly different?
3. History FR gives a bit of uncited data on the origin of human caries. This is important. Here's a free translation:
4. Causes What about Tobacco use? And medical disorders such as Hyperthyroidism and Hyperparathyroidism? Perhaps a bit more on the potential vaccine (though not much; it has its own article)
DE says that there are "several theories on the development of caries. Today the chemo-parasitical Theory of W.D. Miller is generally accepted. Thus, caries result from several pathological factors causing the desctruction of dental tissue in several stages."
Maybe you should go into this more, though I can't comment further on it (due to my ignorance)
5. Images Would these images help illustrate the article?
6. Pseudoscience. I know this article shouldn't get bogged down by crank theories about caries. But a mention of the most prominent ones is in order.
You've done what looks like an excellent job so far. I hope these critiques will be helpful as you *hopefully!* try to bring this article up to featured status. -- Zantastik talk 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has reached GA. I would like to know what is needed to get this to FA. Any suggestions are welcome. RelHistBuff 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I added two more photos and more details on his early life, in particular his family's interest in the WCG and his conversion. As for the final section, detailling the collapse of the church would at first appear to be a negative assessment of Tkach to most people's eyes. But interestingly, the details of the collapse are from sources that are supporters of Tkach. I have tried to show this dichotomy of views on the collapse so that this section will be appear more neutral. RelHistBuff 11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A couple thoughts...
Overall I think this is an excellent article on a difficult subject. I think with more details to flesh out the subject it could be well on its way to FA status. Agne 11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added an explanation of what triggered the reforms and some details of the decision-making process. The feedback has definitely helped to improve the article and I am open to more suggestions and criticisms. RelHistBuff 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a cover from The Plain Truth to the page? It would add something to the description. Mfields1 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Fin Whale/archive1.
A link to this article appeared on Wikipedia's main page on October 23 in the current events section. It has been cleaned up significantly and in-line citations added since its last peer review. I'd like to get an idea of what it would need to push it into good or featured article quality. An older version of this article was listed as a featured article candidate and time hasn't run out on that yet even though I don't think it's getting many eyeballs any more, so I'm not sure if I'm doing things out of order by requesting another peer review at this point. Neil916 ( Talk) 07:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I forgot to come back to this. The image conflict problem is resolved now. Looks very good! Some of the recent material, ie in the abundance section and the lead, could use a quick prose run-through (for example, "This shows a substantial recovery compared to a survey in 1976 showing..."). IIRC naked years don't need wikilinks, and somewhere there's a mention of the "2007-2008 season" where only one of the two years is linked. The abundance section has a lot of great data - maybe a table would help to keep track of which trends are in which places? Opabinia regalis 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This one had a peer review before which didn't receive that much feedback but during the GA nomination it was improved greatly. Now it is a GA and quite nice article overall. Now before possible FA nomination we'd like to have some reviewing. -- Pudeo ( Talk) 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts...
Overall, I agree that it is a great article. I would be very aware of POV which I think will be scrutinized in FAC because of the sensitive subject matter. Agne 12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A bigger lead is now in User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/FCW. It's too long at the moment, but hopefully it will be modified to an appropriate form. Other changes made in the art. also, according to your review, thank you. -- Ilummeen 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Finnish Civil War/archive1
Hello! Here are my observations so far:
Also, might want to mention that the universal suffrage was not limited to men-- it was the first European country to grant suffrage to women, if I remember correctly.
All in all, great job though! -- plange 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you -- plange for the great comments and a special apology for forgetting you ladies with suffrage to women in 1906. I'm glad you noticed it, if you had not, I would be soon attacked by a female "flying detachment" of my own tribe at home :):) -- Ilummeen 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article (which deals with a town in England), has been developing for some time now, and is possibly at it's endgame in terms of contributions by the local editing community.
I (as a significant contributor) would like this article to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status, and feel a peer review would be the most appropriate step for assistance with this. Therefore, constructive comments (personal and automated) that help in this respect would be highly appreciated. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now in December 2006, I am re-entering the article for a peer review (automated and manual) in an effort to further the article.
I believe the previous suggestions have been met and thus hope to receive new recommendations for moving this article towards WP:GA. I believe the format of the article is fine, it is any objectionable statements or other such entries which could be brought inline with the more obscure policies of Wikipedia as soon as possible, which I am looking for. Thanks, Jhamez84 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this article just passed a GA and I'm hoping to eventually try for FA, but having worked on it for a while, I'm starting to get blind about the overall impact it makes. I'd really appreciate your comments on whether it grabs your attention, is consistent and keeps you reading. Grateful for your opinion on whether the summary style works and whether all the style manual components are correct. Cheers-- Saganaki- 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an excellent critique. Get working on improvements right away.-- Saganaki- 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that and it sounds like a good idea. The way I'd approach it is to write a summary and then link through to ethical talk in Brain implant and mind control. Here's why. Currently, there are relatively few criticims of BCIs because:
This could change in the future, for example today's brain pacemakers which aren't considered BCIs could become a lot more sophisticated. Neurochips could also develop further, for example the artificial hippocampus. I would say that the ethical considerations related to BCIs will be very similar or the same to those as for Brain implant and mind control where a debate has already begun. So because the BCI article is already v. long and to avoid duplication I'd suggest creating a preamble then linking to these pages for the full story. Think that works?-- Saganaki- 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get this article to a place where it could be a featured article. Please review in particular the use of citation, citation format (please fix anything that's improperly formatted!), use of images (I'm not happy with the quality of the photos, but they're the best I can find that's GFDL or otherwise available so far), comment on length (but please don't cut any major sections without discussion, it got so long for a reason!), and look over the "controversies" section (almost everything in there is a result of a disagreement of some sort).
I don't know if this article can become a featured article or not, but I'd like to see what non-horsey reviewers think. Arabian horses are, for some reason I can't quite fathom, a rather controversial breed, and many issues have to be handled delicately to avoid upsetting those who care. Montanabw 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, Shadowfax. Erm, a larger lead for one, and I'd like to see a photo rather than a painting in the infobox. Wiki-newbie 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's my view: (This is all I had time for, I'll come back later.)
Serious work here needed:
Notes: Contradictory. To fix this, specify that although it is a horse of good disposition, it requires respect and sensitivity from its owner.
All for now. -- Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know what could be done (major changes) to promote this article to FA status. Please refrain from putting that a certain sentence doesn't have a closing parentheses or doesn't have a comma, because that can be done by yourself! Thanks, Booksworm Talk to me! 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review as I would like this to be peer reviewed as I feel there are plenty of people who know better about this subject than I am. Also there needs more than what is featured. Do bear in mind this is my first request, thanks a lot. Willirennen 16.10 25 October 2006 (utc)
We're discussing sources as well as content. The general need in this article is to cover both the well verifiable uses of the term as well as numerous popular uses of the term. A previous article, WebOS started out on the subject of a particular project at UC Berkeley, and then over time it meandered into the various popular uses of the term -- but without a clear and concise presentation for the reader. The objective in this article is to make this presentation covering all aspects of the use of the term. - JohnPritchard 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been tough to realize the collective opinion on the subject of these articles. It's my estimation that it comes down to merging WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system into one. Such was far from my first choice as individual articles seemed nicer hypertext, but with such strong reactions to individual articles covering these subjects it seems clear that this is the will of the community in the neighborhood. - JohnPritchard 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, "will of the community" is also at debate. Naturally. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a former Afd (closed) as well as a deletion review on the topic of this name Web operating system. - JohnPritchard 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Someone nominated this to be a featured article, but I don't think it's ready yet. However, I think with some more work, it can get there. This is a band with a long history who should have a good article to represent them.
From what I can tell, the intro paragraph needs some fleshing out, and I have some ideas as to how to do that, although any takers would be great. The biggest problem is that the article lacks references. Where can we get them besides BR fan sites? I don't think that they're any more reliable than anything else out there, so anyone with previous experience working on another band's wikipedia page would be most helpful. I'm going to start looking, but if I find something that's deemed unworthy, it'll be an exercise in frustration.
I reshaped the Influence and Tributes section out of a cluster of small paragraphs, but now I'm not sure if people will balk at it because it's so "listy".
Any ideas, suggestions or other forms of help are most appreciated. Thanks in advance, m13b 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be stuff on who influenced them as well as who they influenced. On the dvd jay bentley cites Adolescents as an influence anyone know of any others? 86.138.164.207 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It should explain how they got back together 86.132.211.64 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted! Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Since a couple of days, I have made a revamp of this article. It was full of misleading images and unsourced statements and very long quotes. I have put well-defined references and removed some unverified statements. Here, I would like other opinions from reviewers about this article. Any suggestions, critics, corrections and direct copy-editing are very welcome. Thanks in advance. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked into the introduction, and I think it is very good (links all work, refs are good). Also, really like the birds eye view graphic. Only question from intro is “explosion sound was heard until Sumatra” - perhaps you meant in Sumatra, suggestion would be to “explosion sound could be heard in Sumatra”… ... ? just a suggestion Dharp66 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66
The article looks great. Could the one lonely bit of trivia be incorporated into the text somewhere? User:Wayward might accept a request for copyediting if you ask him. -- Peta 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I have added notable quotes at the end of the article. Could somebody please make a review of the article? Thanks. — Indon ( reply) — 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Question: Do you think that the article is eligible for the WP:FAC? — Indon ( reply) — 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I want people to review the article I have made. Make suggestions for the improvements that can be made. I still believe that the article has a scope for expansion even after I have added considerable ammount of information. ( Gambit pk 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
I just read the section about the death. Some comments :
A really iconic character. Any suggestions? Wiki-newbie 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does
I recently got into a debate with an anthropologist user here, who changed the term " archaeologist" to " antiquarian" in the articles on Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones 4, and Harrison Ford. I reverted these edits and put a warning on his talk page. He took offense and a debate ensued (see User talk:68.101.67.16).
I pointed out that the films present the Jones as an archaeologist. This user said Jones doesn't perform archaeology; rather, he's a treasure hunter and grave robber. The user felt that antiquarian is closer to what Indiana Jones actually practices, although the antiquarian article also needs some association with grave robbing.
I have to admit, this user has a point, and the distinction between real archaeology and what Indiana Jones does should be made in all articles about Indiana Jones. = Axlq 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly believe that at least a section of the Indiana Jones articles should deal with the real life distinction between what a real archaeologist does and what Jones does. No matter what the film represents Jones as, the differences should be noted. I admit that grave robber maybe a little harsh for antiquarians, as it was the educated class taking artifacts from sites with no regard for the context nor culture it was associated with. They didn't do it always for personal gain in the same way grave robbers did. Antiquarians was a form of archaic archaeological thought focused only on the antiques themselves. In this way, Indiana Jones exemplifies antiquarianism rather than archaeology. I think it is important to note the distinctions between the two. 68.101.67.16 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's fair enough. Can anyone recommend good sources on Indiana Jones as an influential pop culture icon? Wiki-newbie 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of work has been put into this article overtime. I'd like to know how well the various editors who worked on this article have done, and what more could be done to bring this entry to featured article quality. ( Ibaranoff24 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
Very nice in generel. Some remarks for further improvement:
I am trying to promote this article to FA. Problems mentioned in the previous nomination for FA status include prose and references. ISD 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lead should be two sentances, with a new sentance for "stars comedian..."
Truthiness should probably include Colbert's comment: "I don't trust books, they're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Let's face it folks, we are a divided nation.... between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart."
The "wrist violence" section should be renamed "wrist violence and painkiller addiction" as the latter seems a parody of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycotin addiction.
Should definitely include a section about the White House dinner speech and President Bush's response.
It might be worthwhile to include a comment about Colbert's interview of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. It seemed to me that in that interview, Colbert slipped out of character to show his genuine personal admiration of Paul's perspective, but then went back into his schtick.
The Charlie Rose interview is superb, showing more about the character and also about the real Colbert. http://youtube.com/watch?v=OvLS4Jv6Tpw&feature=PlayList&p=969C7A105381484E&index=0
Happy to particpate in bringing more wikiality and truthiness to our understanding of this foremost flagaphile.
VisitorTalk 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a peer review of this article before submitting it for FA review. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This was recently upgraded to a Good Article, and I think that it can be an FA with a bit more work. I wasn't the main contributor to the article, but would be glad to implement any suggestions that others have. It is a unique and interesting topic that is not covered very broadly elsewhere on the internet.-- dave-- 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
November 11, 2006 Review here
March 14, 2007 Review here
December 23, 2007 Review here
I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter ( talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.
Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn ( talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.
Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn ( talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn ( talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.
Some additions I feel should be made include:
References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.
If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. Lara ❤ Love 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of unverifiable work has now been removed etc, not by me much. I was hoping to ask how else this could be improved in order to reach Good Article status. Also, does the Future section present any problems? Simply south 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps, BillC 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any further questions. MLilburne 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't want this article to be of Featured Article status. I know the criteria behind Featured Articles and know this band's relatively short background would not accommodate a Featured Article status article. I just want it to be a good article, an article that will befit the high quality of talent behind this group. And yes, I'm speaking from a biased perspective, but I do think that sometimes fans can create awesome things. Anyway, this isn't about fanhood, lest this run afoul of NPOV, but rather QUALITY. And that's what I'm aiming for -- a quality article. ( Krushsister 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
I made some minor edits, in order to bring the table of contents to the top, and to make the text flow a bit better. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert it if you want.
I've been having some minor conflict with an anon user who's introducing some of what I consider overlinking/redundancy/stylistic problems into the article. (Take a look at the history to see the full extent of the situation.) I'm not sure how to make 69.108.115.193's edits into better ones, but I don't want to discourage someone from editing; I think a peer review would be helpful so that somebody uninvolved in this conflict can step in and take a look at actual content. I don't think I need mediation or anything, but a fresh eye would be appreciated. Switchercat talk cont 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, this article still isn't the best, but I figured it'd get more response here than on the talk page. Switchercat talk cont 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to be referenced throughout.
It's unclear in places, such as: The invention of the mouse pre-existed the invention of the mousepad by about seventeen years - does that mean the mousepad was invented 17 years after the mouse? ...and published in 1979 - what (was) published in 1979?
Some of the sentences don't show encyclopaedic quality: The Corepad Deskpad XXXL, possibly the largest pad on the market, is a massive 90cm x 45cm. - the use of possibly doesn't inspire the reader to have confidence in the rest of the article. The use of "massive" is unnecessary (and I suppose slightly point-of-view).
The lists within the text are inelegant, not especially useful and incomplete so cut them down to the main ones (I'm looking at the ones of manufacturers and possible materials).
I think you've dealt with anon correctly so far, and should continue trying to talk to him, but also clean-up or revert his edits as necessary to keep the article decent. Trebor 20:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This article require cleanup :) Please help me ;) -- Genovese 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article recently became a Good Article. I'm looking for feedback that would make this a featured article candidate. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a very comprehensive article, in fact, I was looking for who to thank for writing it. I guess it's just an example of the positive side of Wikipedia (collaboration). :) 67.181.63.245 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This article reached the GA status about a month ago and now I'd like to know how it could be improved. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. No-Bullet 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope I could help, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems like it deals with many areas of the subject. Could you please provide some comments/feedback for how this article could be improved. Any help will be appreciated! Snailwalker | talk 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The biggest thing that stands out here (and also the most annoying to fix, thanks to cite.php) is the references; linking individual articles is good but the full citation should be written out, as static links can change/die/etc, and it is useful for people familiar with the field to see at a glance who or which paper is being cited. There are also some references in the text in the (Soandso, 2002) format, but they aren't and can't be linked to the refs list because the names aren't given. Other stuff:
Opabinia regalis 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work on this article, and it is currently listed as a good article. My perception is that it isn't ready for the Featured Article process; I want to find out what it needs to attain that status, but I realize that wasting everyone's time by nominating it for FA isn't the way to find that out. Thanks! Dylan 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to get this article really tight and submit it for good article review and status. Here are some things I am thinking it would be good to have reviewed for
CyberAnth 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope some of this helps! Seegoon 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope these are useful to you. MLilburne 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In my quick read I saw no mention of christian views on ecological concerns. Where is the debate (to use the language of Genesis) about the possible conflict inherent in human 'multiplying' and in exercising appropraite 'dominion' over creation? ( Just nigel 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
Lead, addressing issues related to failed featured article status. Sabar 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So much work to be done. I lost what I had written earlier. Everything I write will be somewhat hasty, so I apologize. Keep your citations behind your period and quotation marks. Put the intentions of either dueler before "The duel". Mention Burr's killer intention first. A sentence like "Burr's intentions, simply, were to mortally wound Hamilton." This would be fine. Then add your detail about him being a good shot, and wanting to shoot Hamilton in the heart, etc. Use your templates. Cquote can be used here: "rubbed his face, lips, and temples with spirits of hartshorn, applied it to his neck and breast, and to the wrists and palms of his hands, and endeavoured to pour some into his mouth." Hamilton revived a short time later whereupon he remarked on a still undischarged pistol in the pistol case and claimed that he had no intention on firing at Burr. Hamilton remained silent except for answering questions. The last of the letter says Hamilton informed Hosack that "his lower extremities had lost all feeling, manifesting to me that he entertained no hopes that he should long survive." [18] And here:"I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire."[21] And here:"General Hamilton says he cannot imagine what Dr. Cooper may have alluded, unless it were to a conversation at Mr. Taylor's, in Albany, last winter (at which he and General Hamilton were present). General Hamilton cannot recollect distinctly the particulars of that conversation, so as to undertake to repeat them, without running the risk of varying or omitting what might be deemed important circumstances. The expressions are entirely forgotten, and the specific ideas imperfectly remembered; but to the best of his recollection it consisted of comments on the political principles and views of Colonel Burr, and the results that might be expected from them in the event of his election as Governor, without reference to any particular instance of past conduct or private character."[11] So use them. The difference between "Background" and "Cause" is blurry at best. Either substantially differentiate them, or merge them. Your lead, which has already been discussed by my predecessor, is sloppy and the posterboy of run-on sentences. Again with the intentions thing: your coverage of the fact that in no way Hamilton planned on killing Burr is shotty. Please state this fact first, then cover details. Can we have a picture of where Weehawken is? Like you did with the shot of the monument by overview. Get the place of Weehawken like that, and find a suitably licensed picture of the monument. It's out there. -- Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead could use expansion. This is probably the most famous duel in United States history. It's certainly the only one to involve a sitting vice president. Greater depth on the background is probably appropriate. If I remember correctly, Hamilton actually received the greatest number of electoral college votes in 1800 and Burr was second. Hamilton broke the congressional deadlock by throwing all of his votes behind third place Thomas Jefferson. Then (I think this was subsequently) Hamilton campaigned against Burr's unsuccessful bid for governorship of New York State. It ought to be explicit that Burr actually spent the last eight months of his vice presidency on the run from felony arrest warrants in two different states. To expand the aftermath a bit, this duel is the origin of the rivalry between Columbia University and Princeton University (Hamilton was a Columbia man, Burr was a Princetonian). [13] Also, has historical analysis of the duel or its participants shifted over the years? Durova 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A failed featured article candidate. Needs a check on neutrality (frequently disputed, see talk page) and how this can best be improved. Further points of interest are if the terms zoophilia and bestiality should be in one single article or two separate articles as the terms are not synonymous as some people incorrectly assume and what images would be fitting for such an article as some see the current artwork as portraying a too colorful and unrealistic image. Any comment is welcome though! BabyNuke 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Old peer review can be found here --> Wikipedia:Peer review/Ilaiyaraaja/archive1
I request the help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Very excellent article : links that I followed are good & layout is fantastic ! one of the first things I noticed is how that the coat of arms looks to me like it could be more of a public monument. Is this perhaps part of its history ? Dharp66 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66
This article has been a GA for a month and a half. What improvements need to be made before it can be put up for FAC? In particular, thoughts on the "Criticisms and Responses" section would be appreciated. Thank you. - Fsotrain 09 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone much work in the last few months. As of June it only had one reference [14] it now has 52 of them and has been significantly edited, expanded and vastly cleaned up. It has passed GA and I am hoping to make it to FA soon. What I am looking for review on:
Thanks, - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
( help name my baby) 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Moved auto peer review by User:False_Prophet to the minnesota talk page for brevity
Nice article. Would it be appropriate to highlight the different regions: NW, NE, SW, SE? The fifth area, the Twin Cities metro is already well covered. They each have a unique contribution to the state. How about mentions of institutions like the State Fair and WCCO radio, which dominated broadcasting for decades? Isn't the Old Log Theater unique in some way? Longest running something or other? There are probably other examples. It looks like Crystal Sugar has no article and probably deserves one; it could be mentioned along with sugar beets, which perhaps should be linked (along with soybeans and corn). I especially like what has been done with the "Popular culture" section. It lacks the cruft that collects in so many other articles. Is it worth mentioning that Sears, Roebuck and Company got its start in Minnesota? (Probably not.) JonHarder 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Current Good Article, which I'm working on making a Featured Article. I'd especially appreciate any stylistic changes that need to made, as well as suggestions for content that may have been missed (it's a top-level article, and so has an enormous scope). Checking for NPOV in the controversy section would also be helpful. Daveydw ee b ( chat/ patch) 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Lots of thoughts/suggestions:
This is an article I would like to eventually nominate for featured article status. I have not done this before and am hoping that I can get some viewpoints from other Wikipedians as to its quality and make any necessary improvements before nominating it as a featured article. Thanks very much. - Jord 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I am considering eventually nominating this to be a featured article. Do you have any suggestions for improvement or other input so this could be made better? Also, a user brought up issues with prose in my previous FAC, so please comment on this article's prose. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Some comments from me:
And can you send another one over to Britain some time please? :-)
SP-KP 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Three days ago, the article on Russell Cave National Monument was quite small. I began reading about the topic and have researched it extensively other the past three days. I think the article is pretty good after the expansion but I would like the input of others. Thanks for your help. Leeannedy 13:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Leeannedy 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, this article was an Indonesian collaboration article, but it had not improved significantly. So since last week, I have tried to expand the article, of course with some other editors. I'd like people to comment on the flow and the content, as well as the quality of English used. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- I mo eng 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"It is arguably the most important foundation of the country's culture, including food and society..." is the first part of one sentence in the lead. I'm unsure of what it means, mostly because the phrasing is rather odd. I could guess, but encyclopedia readers shouldn't have to. There is also a {{fact}} tag in the lead: it, and the others, need to be replaced with inline citations to reliable sources. Thank you. - Fsotrain 09 04:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would suggest combining the "Protestantism in Indonesia" and "Catholicism in Indonesia" into one larger, more comprehensive "Christianity in Indonesia" section. About the only reason I could see for discussing the denominations in two different sections is the existence of Catholicism in Indonesia, which is part of another article series. But there really doesn't appear to be any reason beyond that to separate them out. - Fsotrain 09 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts...
But overall I think the article provides a good summary of the different religions in Indonesia.
Agne
12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Re FSotrain09 and Agne's problems about the separation of Protestantism and Catholicism , please take note that Imoeng is quite correct and should be taken note of!
They are considered throughout Indonesia as separate religious identities - not as parts of one - they actually usually have in many places separate "territory" of followers within the Indonesian landscape - they have a range of differences as to how they translate the bible and have separate liturgical usage- and to worry about them simply being separate denominations and to bother about why is not the role of the current article - there are indeed aspects of Indonesian religious culture that treat these communities as separate. If the article is to adequately reflect the reality in the Indonesian Constitution and practices of the last 50 years - they need to be identified as such! SatuSuro 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
(in the suharto era, when I travelled in Java - I was always asked "what is your religion" within the first two minutes - as the imputation of Indonesian citizenship (I wasnt one but had a kitas one time) at that time was that you must believe in god and therefore belong to one of the official religions - if you didnt you were atheist and therefore communist - many foreign travellers were naive enough to not adequately disguise their western secularism! It is my belief that such an epistemology (ie necessity to believe in god is what gained your identity card) was quite capable of sustaining a logic and practice that separates the protestant ffrom the catholic in the same climate. SatuSuro
I'd like to see the article become a bit more streamlined. In its current state, its very unpleasing to the eyes and looks very plain with all of the images and tables on the right side of the page. Perhaps some fiddling with size is also is in order.
Also, I'd really like to see something worked out for the first paragraph. It's extremely cluttered and is almost unbearably painful to look at, let alone read. In my opinion, the Airlines subsection should be moved up to its own section and reformatted, but I'd like some feedback on that.
Hopefully we can get it in shape enough to be a good article candidate! thadius856 talk 04:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
[6]*Please alphabetize the
interlanguage links.
[2]
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Eyu100 03:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I still have a lot of work to do about contents, language, and the lead section, but I'd like to ask Wikipedia's experienced contributors a few questions before I continue.
Thank you. Fred- Chess 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've now restructured into sub-articles. So it would be nice if you again went back to review it.... / Fred- Chess 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I also got another book, Tigerstedt's Svensk litteraturhistori, 1971 (fourth edition). Thorough and factual, imo. I've also skimmed through Göran Hägg's Den svenska litteraturhistorian but this is mostly treated as a curiosity in academical circles so I won't use it as a reference.
Also, I think that it is now time for comments about the language of the article (I said at first I didn't want that). So any comments about language, structure, references, images, copyediting, lead section, possible omissions, etc are appreciated. / Fred- Chess 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on History of Minnesota for a while, along with other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of Mulad and Appraiser. The article has recently passed good article review, and I'm eventually hoping to bring it to featured article status. I'd like feedback on the following:
I'd appreciate suggestions on these questions, or any other suggestions you can provide. Thanks! -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Skimmed through it and it looks quite good. Couple of thoughts: the many red links will have to be addressed for FA (you already knew that) and the lead is weak. The lead should summarize the whole article and probably should be a bit longer. The first sentence doesn't get the article off to a good start ("dates back" is redundant), but I don't know what to suggest. The first three people I thought of are not mentioned: Alexander Ramsey, James J. Hill and Henry Rice (who deceived the Ojibway into signing away their land). Highlighting the prairie pioneers by keying off of Laura Ingalls Wilder could work well for the article too. Did MN formerly do a lot of farm equipment manufacturing? Minneapolis-Moline, for example? Another way to beef up the history of agriculture is to mention Oliver Hudson Kelley and the Grange movement and subsequent develpments like the National Farmers Organization (NFO) which caused some tension in the 60s and 70s. Then getting farther affield, there is the decline of "Machinery Hill" at the State Fair (big equipment replaced by lawnmowers) balanced by FarmFest making its home on the Gilfillan estate near Redwood Falls (but that's original research!). JonHarder 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments, criticism or otherwise to improve this article are welcome. Thanks Globaltraveller 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like an issue of some importance or interest (at least in America). I'd like to know what I can help improve. SilverStar talk 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Soliciting feedback on this article, which I'm hoping to improve to FA eventually. The article has had a previous peer review here; it was listed by another editor when I was on a bit of a wikibreak, so unfortuately I was unaware of it and unable to respond to comments. I've improved the issues that were raised since then, so hope you'll give this a second look. Thanks in advance, -- Bailey (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I've gone as far as I can for right now. I do have more info, but I'm waiting on outside sources to verify it for me. I'm looking for others with more info on the subject or just those who feel the page could be laid out differently. How is my grammar? ( !Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 11:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC))
Feel this controversial article could still do with some real help. I feel it is biased in favour of AA. I am in an edit war, which is kind of pathetic. I would really like someone to review it, and if possible get involved. I dont think either I, or the other regular editors, are capable of being NPOV on this matter. PLEASE HELP 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really asking for a review for the path to featured article, but ways to improve this article. This article has a little bit of controversy, with a group of people claiming that AA is a cult, overly religous, it's validity, etc. I would like to find the best way to cover all aspects of this in the article, but it's already kind of long (with lots of great information). I'm looking for ways we can restructure the article, reorganize things, and make sure all points of view are addressed while still NPOV. Thanks!-- Twintone 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
AA has had accusations of being cult-like from a fairly wide variety of sources. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. If it is, then it is one of the less damaging ones (though that is not to say not damaging at all). I think a thorough examination of both sides of that argument would be useful. 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
AA does have some religious tenets, and the supreme court in America described it as such (as detailed in the articles "coercion" section). Similarly, Bill W's teachings are often held in such high regard that to question will bring a similar reaction to that of a satanist in an Easter ceremony. Read "AA Horror Stories" for examples of when these tenets have been corrupted and then exploited by cult like factions of AA, or look into the "Midtown AA Group" in Washington.
Interestingly, Bill kind of did imply that he had a "special cure" for alcoholism, with the following from the 12x12: " Any willing newcomer feels sure A.A. is the only safe harbor for the foundering vessel he has become." Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 35 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Could not agree more. Was hoping to get some "unbiased" (which excludes me!) editors to do a bit of work on the AA page. I would be happy to advise, as I am sure would other regular editors on the page. I think we could do with someone interested in learning more about the subject, who is experienced with wiki, to make this article give a balanced view of AA. 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Many AA members do state that AA is the only way though. I have witnessed it myself. It is well documented by others (Stanton Peele, Charles Buffe, The Orange Papers website). Comments in the big book imply it strongly, such as "you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer." or "At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else." 82.19.66.37 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Stanton Peele is at the extreme end of the academic community, Charles Buffe has only been published by 'See Sharp Press' (in the publishers own words: "a cause-driven small press" with a mission "to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism.") and 'The Orange Papers' website is one anonymous guy in his bedroom who hates AA. Of course this encyclopedic article doesn't read like their opinion!
Unfortunately this article is frequently marred by the insistence by a few individuals (who are easily identified by their refusal to sign in to Wiki, their repetitive insertion of conspiracy links and their contribution to Wiki being solely arguing on the discussion page rather than actually editing the article), that the AA article is biased unless it mirrors these conspiracy theories.
Ongoing Peer review would certainly be valued, but not all the comments from the previous peer review have been incorporated yet (the 'deeper structural' editing for example). Perhaps we could do with more editors and less conspiracy theorists! -- Mr Miles 11:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Half of that was in italics, and the link should be a citation. Why is that extra , I don't know. Fix that. I think I gave you enough work. Drop a message by when you're ready for more. Evan( Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the article comprehensive, well written. There is nothing on the Internet that could tell you more about Austin Nichols than this article does, I think! So, is there anything else I ought to do before I send it to FA? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 15:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
OTHER REVIEWS WOULD BE APPRECIATED Dev920 ( Please vote here) 00:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Things I noticed:
Other than that, it's looking pretty good. The refs are pretty thorough, it seems complete (although is also fairly short for FA - dunno if anything can be expanded a little) - nice work. Trebor 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Go on, review it. You know you want to... Dev920 ( Please vote here) 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
We want to know how RuneScape can be edited in order to attain FA status. It has already passed a GA nom.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has come a long way, and is almost ready for FAC. Please, lend a hand in polishing the article to Wikiepedia's finest standards. Aditya Kabir 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Urban layout" and "Civic life" are not well organized. The later has stuff that should be in the former. "Urban layout" on the other hand, almost solely focuses on three old mansions, which do not dominate the current urban design. "platform for all political-cultural movements" -- "all" is streatching it. "The Bangla Academy initiated the first Boishakhi Mela ... is also sponsored by major cell-phone and carbonated drink brands. " -- last part quite unnecessary
Look for similar stuff-- ppm 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have gone through the whole article and found some of the parts that should be improved. Besides, this article demands some of the points to be added in order to give it a complete touch.
Other than those parts, overall article is well written. Niaz bd 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This article need to be improved to the level of a featured article. Need suggestions.
Chanakyathegreat 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article looks quite comprehensive, but it is going to need both more citations and a very thorough copyediting before it passes FA (or GA, for that matter). One citation per paragraph is a good rule if you're aiming for GA status; you may also want to see whether there are any books on the subject, as it seems like you mostly have internet references (although some very impressive ones). You may want to have a native English speaker look the article over, as there are a lot of odd points of phrasing. Here are some copyediting points (not a comprehensive list):
I hope this is helpful. Best of luck with the article. MLilburne 17:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Could the whole article be reviewed??? Chris5897 10:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has a good description of history including sales status in other countries outside the US. Each model (generation) from 1982 has sufficient information talking about the changes made as well as the platform and engine. There are also plenty of pictures in this article. To me, this article seems ready for GA nomination. However, I want to know what really needs to be worked for a GA nomination and in the future, a FA nomination. Starcity ai 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has undergone many improvements over the past few months, and is now fairly stable, receiving only a minor edit now and then. Please comment on anything that might prevent it from qualifying as a Wikipedia good article. Eventually I would like to see it reach Featured Article status. Thanks. - Amatulic 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Some sentences don't flow. "It has recently seen greater attention with the rise in demand for low-carbohydrate, low-sugar food alternatives, and is widely used as a sweetener in Japan, and is available in the US and Canada as a food supplement." It's hard to see what the main focus of that sentence is - it's sort of pieced together with double use of 'and is'. The first section is entitled "uses" but seems also to be a mix of history and science, jumping about different countries and dates. The facts are there but aren't presented very logically, in my opinion. Are the "health concerns" worthy of half the article (I'm not saying they aren't - I've never heard of the plant before and health concerns may be the main reason it's notable). The lead should reflect the whole article (and attempt to touch upon each section, however briefly) yet does not mention anything about the health concerns which is the majority of the article.
Trebor
23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I was hoping to use the peer review process to improve the Lostpedia article. It recently survived an AfD. Several editors of the article are new to Wikipedia and may not be 100% familiar with all the policies and guidelines. Thanks in advance! -- Jabrwocky7 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article on the history of the Tamil Nadu state in south India covers an extensive period of time - from pre history to modern times. Tamil Nadu is an ancient land with very rich culture and history. The length of the article may be a bit larger than that recommended, but I think the subject warrants such a length. I would like to request comments on improving this article further. Thanks - Parthi talk/ contribs 10:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Present: On going ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka resulted in the first Eelam War (1983-87) in 1983, following an ambush by Tamil guerrillas on the Sri Lankan army. The news of the ambush caused widespread outrage and a violent backlash against Tamils in the south of the island resulting in a large numbers of Tamils fleeing to the north, and from there to Tamil Nadu. The sudden appearance of over one hundred thousand displaced, embittered Tamils resulted in a surge of political support from the Dravidian political parties of Tamil Nadu. They exerted pressure on the Indian government to intercede with the Sri Lankan government on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The two rival Dravidian parties aligned themselves with the corresponding rival groups fighting the Sri Lankan government. The Indian government of Indira Gandhi supported the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka by sponsoring various militant groups. The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of 1987 resulted in the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed in the north of Sri Lanka and brought India directly in conflict with LTTE, one of the main Tamil militant groups. The deployment ultimately proved to be a failure and the IPKF was withdrawn in early 1990. Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister during this period was assassinated in May 1991 by an LTTE operative while campaigning in Tamil Nadu. This act and the war between the IPKF and LTTE caused a considerable cooling down of sympathy in the Dravidian parties towards the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.
Problems:
Here is what I'd include: On going ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka large numbers of Tamils fleeing to Tamil Nadu. The plight of Tamil refugees caused a surge of support from Tamil political parties. They exerted pressure on the Indian government to intercede with the Sri Lankan government on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The then-Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in Give exact date by an LTTE operative for his role in sending Indian peacekeepers to Sri Lanka to disarm the LTTE. This act and the war between the IPKF and LTTE caused a considerable cooling down of sympathy in the Dravidian parties towards the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.
Post-Independence Period
Just two small suggestions, which you can feel free to ignore if you think they don't add value to the article:
Meenakshi Temple
Just a minor suggestion for now. The caption under the Meenakshi Temple of Madurai says it was "built by the Nayak king". There are many sources that say the main body of the temple was started by the Pandyas, perhaps in the 13th century, and the inner sanctum of the temple is thought to be much much older still. Perhaps for npov, ...the temple, renovated by the Nayak king or something along those lines? Wubbabubba 09:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is a recently failed GA. Although the review was not terribly...detailed, it makes the good point that the article is very dense and technical. There's also the problem that I'm essentially the only author (before my first edit it was a one-sentence stub), and that's never good for either comprehensiveness or accessibility. Any thoughts from knowledgeable non-experts (or of course anyone familiar with the subject) would be great. (I'm guessing the tree rearrangements are a particularly sticky spot?) Opabinia regalis 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments on the page overall, with special focus on the plotline and references. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Following a concerted effort to make this a featured article, the drive slowed and refined editing has become stagnant. The authors come from mainly technical backgrounds and would appreciate feedback on improving it. To compliment the waste management section and ongoing recent peer review of incineration a peer review of this article would be welcome. Thank you for your help in advance -- Alex 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope some of this helps. Seegoon 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Article still needs a copy edit and I'm still doing some general work on it, but let me know if there's anything glaringly confusing about it, still needing a citation, or any other serious problems. -- W.marsh 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
After years of decline with abandoned buildings and high elderly populations, in more recent years the culture of Old Louisville changed Old Louisville has a changed culture. New residents were [are?] not just college students using the area as housing, but also young professionals who wanted [want?] to live in Old Louisville, whomwhich the Courier-Journal's Velocity weekly has reported see the area as a hip, emerging center of culture in Louisville. This change is reflected in numerous coffeehouses, restaurants and bars opening in Old Louisville in the 1990s and early 2000s targetinged at the younger crowd .[2]
Old Louisville is one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Louisville, as evidenced by the General Election results in 2004, where itthe residents voted for John Kerry by a 60% margin and 66% voted against a proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" by a 66% margin (which passed 75% to 25% in Kentucky).[20]
AZ
t
01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I found a new image on Flickr to show the art fair a bit better. Also I found a bunch of images on Flickr I didn't know where there, if anyone with a better eye for design than me wants to pick out some good ones to illustrate this article, have at it: these should all be CC-by-2.0 and usable by us -- W.marsh 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article seeks nomination for Feature Article.-- Magi Media 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I award you this condign and well-deserved barnstar for all your outstanding contributions to the many Biography articles - Anas Salloum 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
Especially on your amazing contributions to the Thaddeus S. C. Lowe article. Good job Mike! ↔ ANAS - Talk
Just need a review to improve the article. This is not meant as a review for a featured article candidacy. I just want to get it there - I plan for many peer reviews. Any help for improving the deployment section especially would be appreciated! Thank you! JonCatalan 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Only skimmed it briefly, but a couple of things stood out. The lead is a bit weak - it's too specific, doesn't give enough of an overview. One of the cites is to another WP article which shouldn't be done. The website in the references should be hyperlinked - check a featured article to see how they do it. The first 3 sections look quite good. Trebor 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Between 1939 and 1953 much of Spain's armour fell into disrepair due to its age, and the same could be true for the North Korean military.
are skirting the edge of a WP:NOR violation, and should really be either sourced (tell us exactly who has speculated thus), or removed. Again, congrats on the good work with this article! -- Visviva 07:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all in advance for your reviews and suggestions. I am seeking general suggestions for improvement with the intention of recommending this article for Featured Article status. I am the chief contributor to this article, expanding from a few line stub to its current look. Please be as brutal as possible, especially with suggestions for copyediting and reduction of any redundant or superfluous text (i'm notorious for that). I thought about first seeking good article status, but I feel that this article more appropriately meets the featured article criterion. User:Ruhrfisch had run the automated peer review script within the past 24 hours (located on the article's talk page) and I believe I have addressed most of the concerns raised by it. However, I am looking for further recommendations. Thanks again and I look forward to your commentary. — ExplorerCDT 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
portions that are struck out I think I've taken care of, as of this posting.—
ExplorerCDT
17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
[6]You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
AZ
t
22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have done some copyedits to try and fix minor typos and tighten it up a little - please revert them if they make errors. I have some suggestions that I hope to enter here later today as well. Ruhrfisch 16:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
More later, hope this helps Ruhrfisch 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - sorry I missed the Highlands. Here are my final comments.
A fine song, and I think this article's notability is deserving enough for it to reach FA status. Please dive in and offer your thoughts. Velten 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering submitting for GA, after, I hope, adressing all the issues raised in the previous peer review. Please point out any reason why I shouldn't submit it. :D Druworos 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Plan is to get this up to FA: It's a controversial article, but I've always been impressed at how well it's done. All suggestions welcome, though please don't just shout about howwe're all going to Hell. It tends to offend. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
True... it HAS undergone a certain drift in the wrong direction since I first found it. I shall try and redress this. Adam Cuerden talk 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for a bit. I think it's concise and well-enough written, but I want to improve the flow within the subsections and I'd like to improve the references and see-also section but I'm not totally sure how. I don't want to link to the group's website over and over again. I would like feedback and fixes from people who are totally unrelated to either the group or the school in general but who appreciate its significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmz5 ( talk • contribs) .
Looking for review help to get this to GA or FA status. A mcmurray 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How could it possible be improved, as I hope for it to get to FA status. Thanks, Kil o• T 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made some recent additions to the article, but I still would like to see some guidance on helping this article Featured. I have sent it through peer review twice, but the last one was responded only by a automatic script. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is good, but may still need expanding. I will try to expand it, but will need help. Thanks! Jmclark911 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that the references section of this needs a good clean, but any ideas on the article as a whole would be extremely helpful! HawkerTyphoon 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The automated peer review's most notable suggestion, is about the Lead. Per Wikipedia, they state that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."
Anyone care to dig in and give it a try? Lt. Dan 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the proposed new Lead:
Would you be kind enough to discuss , either here in the Automatic Peer Review page, or over on the poppers article Talk page, any significant changes you're contemplating before making them? This gives other interested parties an opportunity to comment before any significant changes are made.
In the edit summary for your deletion of the mention of RUSH being the most common brand, you gave as the reason for your deletion the following: "removed reference to Rush - is it the most popular? we can't prove it, as people are hardly going to keep records of buying the stuff!"
The reason I noted that RUSH appears to be the most common of the bottled alkyl nitrites was because when you Google poppers, or rush poppers, etc, it becomes readily apparent that it's the brand that seems to be the one most talked about. There are numerous mentions on web sites where poppers are sold that RUSH is the most popular brand. Also, the Wall Street Journal printed the claim in it's front page story on poppers (In the piece, they claimed that both RUSH and Locker Room were the most common brands). And, it's common knowledge that "Rush" is one of only a few street names for poppers; it's actually synonymous with the word poppers. When a brand name becomes synonymous with the category of product, then it's one of the more common brands, if not the most popular. This would hold true for any category of product.
IMHO the Lead should give, as a point of reference to what these products are, at least one brand name so the reader is better informed. RUSH is the most obvious brand name to list.
That's why I think the sentence should be reinserted in the Lead. Lt. Dan 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The lead is good. Consider adding some reference about recent upsurge in youth using poppers in a dance/rave context.The concern in the UK where poppers use among youth has resulted in the website www.iabuse.org . The use by youth appears to be popular because of the immediate light headedness effect and increasing in sensitivity to sensations of sound and ...like in dance music. While use tends to be adults, it is relevant that youth use does occur and in non sexual context. I look forward to the lead being restored. And then on to the current controversy about risks, research, and relevance, especially to gays, bisexuals, navigating in the context of the AIDS epidemic.
209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson 209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has apparently been getting a lot of needed attention from an expert in the field (certainly not me) but I thought it should get looked at by a broader set of editors. Is it comprehensible? Are the references adequate? -- Beland 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Previous Peer Review can be found here
The last review was over a year ago and the article is still good but is looking very messy and sprawly. I'd be very grateful for some further ideas about what we should do with this one. -- Spartaz 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Purge the gallery and put the images in appropriate places. Wiki-newbie 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Is Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan) ever going to be worthy of an article? If not, delink it. Check the other red links as well, the next one I saw was flight risk which seems unlikely to ever be made as well. It's quite long and, as you say, 'sprawly'. Could the information about specific country's policies and any of the other 'list' type information be put in their own articles and summarised in the main article? The gallery could go as Wiki-newbie says, and some of the images located elsewhere on the page. There are very few cites for the length of article, in particular the history has only one. It seems very disjointed as well, I think it should be cut back quite severely and only general information included, with as little country-specific stuff as possible (as there are too many countries to mention them all on the page, and to focus on particular ones is POV). Trebor 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of country specific articles. Perhaps some of the stuff can be hoved off there with links from the sections of the main article. Thanks for the advice so far. very useful. Spartaz 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Red Links can be de-wikified Doctor Bruno 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello I'm seeing if there is anything wrong with this article before I take it to Featured article candidates.I do think it probably needs more inline references.-- Team6and7 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article. With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV. In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective. Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Aude ( talk) 13:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good article so far, get some external links and sort out that neutrality dispute. Wiki-newbie 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article could use a little more of a conversational tone. I see this only because I have been critiqued for this very issue myself in the past. The article has plenty of facts and figures and all I can say is try to be more expressive...but what I like about the article is that is is to the point, without a lot of "fluff" and simple jargon. Just a few other points:
I'll see what else I can dig up.-- MONGO 07:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Have added the top 10 list of guns involved in crime. Strangely enough, semi-auto's are not the preferred firearms. Yaf 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Have added an historical perspective to article (assassinations and attempted assassinations of U.S. Presidents, along with a few other notables) that supports the view that gun violence is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. Yaf 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Done a lot of work on this in the last few mounths. There is talk of make this a FAC. I think it's best to give it a PR first. Buc 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has had a number of authors and is reaching a good stage for a wider peer review-- Alex 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is looking good. Overall, I think it needs a thorough grammar review. It also has several sentences that appear to have landed in the wrong section or have landed in the article twice. If possible, you may also try to use a few more pictures (some other than the exterior of a facility would also be good). Keep working on it but it is already looking like a good article.
Leeannedy 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am slowly trying to improve this article to the point where I can nominate it for FA. It is certainly an important article for a general audience, because it is one of the linchpins of the big bang theory. It is hard, because it deals with a somewhat technical topic that, while old, is still very much a topic of current research, particularly with recent developments in string theory. My feeling about the article right now is that it works well as a literature review, but it is still much too technical for the general reader. I also know that the last four subsections in "Theoretical status" could use some work (they are stubs), and the article is probably getting to be on the long side. More illustrations would help, but I'm not sure what to add: there used to be an image from a WMAP press release, but I'm unsure of whether it really teaches the reader anything. Any comments would be much appreciated: I sometimes feel a bit like I'm working in a vacuum. – Joke 03:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please review the above-mentioned article, in particular looking for weaknesses in style, cohesiveness, structure and factual or logic errors. Even if not immediately evident from the article's history, it is the work of many months. Thanks. -- Fullstop 10:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As for logical and scholastic content, I'm not even going to try because this goes right over my head. Seegoon 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this might be a bit different but i was wondering if i could get any feedback on how the cetaceans portal could be improved. Nominating for Featured Portal would be nice, but i am not really sure if this is worthy of that. Any comments would be grateful... chris_huh 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This has previously undergone an Peer Review here and two failed FACs here and here. It has since received copyediting from User:Coil00 and fmt-d by User:Heaven's Wrath (much thanks, guys!). I was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether or not this would pass FAC now - I'd rather not nominate it and have it fail a third time :(. Any comments feedback would be great! (especially regarding wording and language) Thanks! Wickethewok 22:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The puncuation implies that the three facts are connected, and lead from each other, but this is not really the case. Similar problems occur a number of times in the article, however they're easily fixed by breaking down the sentences. You do need to go through the entire text and weed these out, but once that's done, you there I reckon. Best of luck with it, it'd be great to finally see a DJ make FA. - Coil00 20:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into this article, and was hoping for some help pointing out any errors I have made or how I may be able to further better this article. Thanks. Pepsi2786 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The sections are often only a paragraph long, and the paragraphs are often only 1 or 2 sentences. I don't know how much info there is on this guy and whether any of it could be expanded, but otherwise some sections and paragraphs should be linked. The image does not have any documentation proving it is free use. Trebor 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Any and all input, please. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to see what needs to be done to get this list to featured list status. It looks as if it meets the criteria, but there may still be some fixing to do. T REX speak 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This simply needs an assessment of the article importance, as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Assessment#Importance_scale guidelines.
I'm not sure whether this should be fairly high, as it represents the main body of knowledge about the subject, or low, as a football club is of little importance compared to articles on war, etc. Fedgin | Talk 12:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
please write your reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senators ( talk • contribs) 07:28, November 5, 2006 (UTC)
This article was recently broken out of the Constitution of Thailand article due to length. I am primarily concerned with whether the standalone article is comprehensible without the legal/historical context provided by the Constitution of Thailand article.
I am also concerned with the general Good Article criteria, particularly whether the article is well written. Patiwat 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has seen a lot of expansion by a number of dedicated editors in recent weeks and I think it's approaching readiness for FA status. Any comments that could help move it along that path would be appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is solid, with interesting prose balanced with trivia and lists, yet it is only rated B class. Other than extra pictures, what does it need to push it to GA or even FA status? It is an important article about a club very important to English football, and should be improved in as many ways as possible. к1иg f1$н £я5ω1fт 20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I already listed the article for peer review, but received no comments. Eventually, however, Fly to the Sky did manage to climb to GA status, but now I want to make it FA. Please point out any flaws!! mirageinred 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was a COTW back in mid-August, and the editors involved made some serious corrections, cleanup and expansion of the article. I would like to bring this up to FA status eventually, but I wante d to come here first to get an idea as to where the article stands, as it is. Here are some things I am concerned about:
Thanks. Nishkid 64 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated this article as a Featured Article. Someone said I should request a peer review, on account of lack of citation. I argue that citations diminish the value of certain articles, such as this one. Your thoughts? Chris 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
OK -- time to close this down.
No cites = no Featured Article, apparently Chris
This is a self nomination - as I wrote most of the material here with additional help from User:Ackees. This being an under-represented area of wikipedia, the number of editors taking a look and making amendments or improvements is few and far between, so I could do with more pairs of eyes scanning the article to see how it shapes up. -- Zleitzen 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: this is a list peer review
I've improved the list greatly prior submitting it to FLC and while the FLC: adding intro, adding image fair use rationales, expanding episode descriptions (with the help of Peregrinefisher) and many other changes. However, the nomination failed, mostly per non-complete episode descriptions, fair use rationales and need for copyediting. I am currently fixing the major concerns (see my notice) and will submit the list again sometime this month. I'm primarily submitting this on peer review to get minor suggestions on list improvements and copyediting suggestions. Michaelas10 ( T| C) 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is currently undergoing some major changes to bring it up to a higher level of quality. Input would be appreciated about what content is relevant and what content is not, how to best section certain blocks of information, etc. If you can, if a peer reviewer has already made a suggestion you had in mind, make another suggestion to cover a different aspect of the article. We are open to new ideas. -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Trim previous Batman projects into the Development section. The Batmobile section should be turned into a 'Design' section too. You need more refs too: raid the external links. Wiki-newbie 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The influences section, in particular, needs cites. There are a couple of one sentence paragraphs that could be linked into nearby ones. In the plot description, however, the paragraphs might be a bit long and could do with being broken up. Could the soundtrack get its own page and the track listing go there? And I agree with the suggestion to merge cancelled projects somewhere else; I'm not sure it belongs in this article. The lead could do with being slightly longer too. But it's shaping up well as an article. Trebor 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I might've been a little anal about one or two things here, but overall I'd say this is a very good article. I think you need to focus on the prose in Plot, and maybe to expand upon Reception to offer a more in-depth analysis. Anyway, I hope I've been some kind of help. Seegoon 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Design section can stay where it is: it compliments the Production. Wiki-newbie 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is already a Good Article, but with the increasing amount of attention this article's going to get in the coming months, it'd be great to have some input from the peer review group on how we can really make this a shining example of Wikipedia's very best work. -/- Warren 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It starts well but comes very list-heavy and is a bit long overall (74kb). The "new features" already have their own page and I think too many of them are included in the main article as well. Could they be cut to the most important (judged by media response, difference from previous versions of windows, etc.), and preferably incorporated into prose? It seems very unlikely that this article can become an FA for a long while, as one of the criteria for that is "stable" - something this article necessarily can't be. But I agree this article will get attention and needs to be kept as good as possible. Trebor 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very fond of this article but have not been much involved in development. Page creator Magi Media has put some good thought and a heap of time into this important and intriguing subject. With his support, I've asked for this peer review, so we can get some eyes to help this along to the next phase (A-Class or GA status). For my part, I think the article could use a References section at the end, to collect important reading and better support the inline references recently added. I think the layout could use a tiny bit of tweaking. BusterD 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just generally curious to get a full list on what needs to be done for this article, esp for it to reach good article status at least. For a programme that manages almost 6m viewers it shouldnt be too hard :) RHB 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
WP:PARA's first collaboration of the month. Has undergone massive editing, but needs direction on further improvement/current standing before sending it in for a GA nomination. -- InShaneee 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
General Concerns
Modern background
Contemporary accounts of a "flying disc" at Roswell
"Claimed alien and spacecraft recoveries, cover-ups, witness intimidation"
Roswell as a myth: The skeptical response
The last two section look fine. Anyway, thanks for reading my personal suggestions which I want to be taken as advice not necessarily what I think must be done. - Tutmosis 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a biographical article on an Indian Classical music singer. I request the following:
1. Comments on the content of the article (is it thorough enough, what other aspects of the life of the subject of this biography could be included, etc.)
2. Comments on ways in which article could be modified to meet Feature Article requirements.
3. A rating for this article.
Thanks. ॐ Kris ( ☎ talk | contribs) 10:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. All done. Anything else? -- ॐ Kris ( ☎ talk | contribs) 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be great to get some feedback on how this article can be taken to the next level. It has previously been reviewed as part of the WikiProject Biography but needs some input to get it to meet FAC. Reviews very welcome Dick G 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The article's been a target of various nats from all over the world in the past. As the topic is quite controversial, revert wars and POVs from all sides were quite abundant. As I often do I decided to escape forward and expanded the article significantly, adding plenty of sources. This proved a right tactics as it seems that the article's been fairly stable since May.
Now then, during the GA nomination, one of the judges noted that the article ends abruptly, a remark I did not understand. Perhaps there are also other problems that need to be addressed, I'm not really sure what's more to add. Could someone take a look at the article and tell me what's missing? // Halibu tt 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:KaElin ( talk • contribs) .
I would like this to be a Wikipedia:Good Article and any advice or feedback on how to expand this stub article would be appreciated. -- SunStar Net 12:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Since this article is in a more or less complete state now, I am nominating it for peer review.
An earlier version of this article was nominated for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain (Reconstituted)) on the grounds of non-notability and non-verifiability. The result was "no consensus" (defaulting to keep). I then rewrote the article completely with extensive citations from primary sources (i.e., material published by Socialist Studies itself). Since Socialist Studies basically defines itself in relation to the Socialist Party of Great Britain, I've also cited primary sources from the SPGB, though since the SPGB has (with one exception) never publically commented on Socialist Studies, the references are generally useful only to draw comparisons between the two groups. There are virtually no other secondary sources with any information of value; though there are brief mentions in things like court records and police reports, Socialist Studies usually gets no more than a footnote in scholarly works (well, two footnotes in the case of Perrin's book). I'm therefore still skeptical that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements, so please comment on notability and verifiability issues.
I especially want comments on possible neutrality/POV issues, because the article documents a political dispute, because the bulk of the information comes from Socialist Studies itself rather than from third-party commentaries, and because the article has only one principal author (me). (I previously solicited commentary on the article's talk page and via a {{POV-check}} tag, but I think I may get a better response here.) — Psychonaut 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the article. User:Green01 6:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
Other then the lead, which needs expanding, I think it's very well written and informative. Well done. :) S.Skinner 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The following are the contentions I have with the article in the feild of WP:NPOV concerns.
“ | Some of these ex-members, comprising sixteen individuals, refused to recognise the expulsions and attempted to continue operating as the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which they claimed to have "reconstituted". | ” |
Possibly biased wording there, with the quotation marks.
“ | Socialist Studies adopted the object and principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and thus purports to hold that party's general ideology and stance on most social, economic, and political issues. | ” |
Purports could be a loaded word here. Perhaps "claims" is a little better here?
“ | Despite calling for the establishment of socialist political parties, Socialist Studies believes that such parties should not engage in political action which requires use of or active cooperation with "capitalist law" or "bourgeois legislation". | ” |
Should explain this a little more to be a little more balanced.
“ | Socialist Studies accuses the SPGB of coming under the influence of anarchist ideas and not sufficiently emphasising the parliamentary aspect of the socialist revolution. | ” |
This one is loaded enough to either require a significant citation or be retracted, IMHO.
Other than that, it looks pretty good. Kudos to the editors here. Hope my comments have been helpful. Cheers! -- ✎ Wizardry Dragon ( Talk to Me) ( Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
— Psychonaut 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just rewritten this article, which was a stub, and completely POV. I would like feedback to make sure that it is neutral and clear enough. I should add that the page has had a lot of random edits by anonymous editors, and the page could be the subject of an edit war--hence my desire to have it reviewed for neutrality. Thanks. Jeffpw 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the paragraph about est and Scientology needs to be expanded. I'll start working on that after work today. The later Developments section was full when I went to bed, with no less than 5 sources. It was vandalized before you looked at it. It is now reverted (though all your lovely copy editing was lost in the process). Thanks again. Jeffpw 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I initiate this last peer-review, just before submitting the article to WP:FAC. The article has already gone through two peer-reviews ( here and here), and two more independent reviews by User:Yomangani and User:Eusebeus. Please, check Talk: El Greco. The purpose of this peer-review is to collect any further suggestions or to locate any deficiencies I may have missed despite the repetitive reviews and copy-edits. Thanks!-- Yannismarou 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I switched all of your news sources from cite web to cite news, so that all of the information, including publication date, would be listed, alphabetically by last name of author. Because I didn't know how to use a different date format (I hate the cite templates), that meant I had to switch the last access date format on all of your refs. All of your references are now listed alphabetically, taking last name of author on news sources into account.
The division of References into
creates a problem with the citations list. When the reader needs to find full detail on a source given in the citations list, s/he should be able to do that by going down the References list alphabetically. But, because the references are divided three ways, that means the reader has to peruse three different lists in order to locate full information about a given source. I'm not sure how to solve that problem - I'd probably be happier to see one, combined Reference list, to make it easier on the reader. I'm not sure the reader needs to know if a source is online, in print, or whatever. (I haven't had time to read the article, and considering the holiday season, may not find time.) Sandy ( Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Some brief thoughts and comments:
Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Using my finest-toothed comb...
Except for the above points, this would tick all my boxes at FAC. Best of luck to you! talk to the HAM 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for the last few months after reading several books on the subject. I've been including information as I see fit, but before I develop the article further I would like to get some critical review of how I'm getting on so far.
In particular, I would like people to comment on the following:
Any comments or guidance would me much appreciated! Bobo12345 10:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am thinking about nominating either interpersonal chemistry or human bonding (or both) for FA candidacy. On the latter article's talk page, it has been suggested that it be a " featured article". Any comments or article critique (on either article) would be appreciated. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have during the past two weeks expanded the article on the Walls of Constantinople, ultimately aiming at advancing it to A-class or FA, and hope to get your input on it. Although there is information I still want to add, I would like to have your opinions, especially on:
Regards, Cplakidas 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not read the article in detail, because I don't have time today. But I'll hopefully come back tomorrow with more content- and prose-related remarks and a more detailed review. This initial and incomplete review is limited in just some technical issues:
Sorry for the delay, but at last I found some time to review in detail this article. These are my remarks:
In general, the article is well-written and informative, but it needs more citations. And, although the prose flow looks not bad, I'd strongly recommend a copy-edit by a native English-speaker. I think you could submit such a request in the Military History project or politely ask an editor you know and trust to copy-edit the text.-- Yannismarou 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Archive: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario/archive1
The article seems to be nearing featured status. There should probably be a few more references; my question is, what else is left to cite? Also, is there anything other improvements to be made to this article to reach featured status? — The Gr e at Llama talk 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Seaborg is one of the giants of science and his legacy and stature seem to be growing. I would like to improve upon this article, and hopefully prepare this article for featured article status. I have removed a lot of the lists and bullets to create, hopefully, a more encyclopedic style. All constructive comments are welcome. Seaborg was listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as having the longest entry in Who's Who in America. Therein lies the rub. Is it too long, does it do justice to the subject? Is it well written and interesting? Is there enough of a narrative thread? Too much repetition between the main article and the subsections? We need some outside editors to help move this one up the ladder. Seaborg is a monumental figure in the history of Science and we need to make sure WP adequately covers him. Thanks in advance. Glenn4pr 09:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's generally good, but a few sections need work. The lead is messy and essentially just a list of the things he did and won. It could be split into 3-4 paragraphs, and have more of a structure in itself. It goes into too much detail: there doesn't need to be a list of all the elements he discovered, for instance. It needs some trimming so it only includes the most important/notable things. The quote at the bottom seems a bit out of place, can't it be included in the relevant section of the rest of the text? The early life section, particularly the second paragraph, is a bit stilted and just a collection of facts about him. "He kept a daily journal. He was a sports and movie fan. His mother encouraged him to be a bookkeeper." Those need some kind of relevance or context - what happened to the journals, did he ever pursue his interest in sports and music, did his mother's encouragement make any difference to what he did? And the last sentence there about being inspired could really do with a reference (of him saying that). Trebor 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Article is stable now that the Lost Experience is over, needs general feedback. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working tirelessly to get this to Good Article status. I'm unsure what else is needed to get it there, and I don't know of any prose issues (no one has done a copyedit). Please do not mention the lack of references in the second half of the Plot section - they have been ommited on purpose to make further editing (which is likely) easier -- TheEmulatorGuy 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Great work, some concerns:
The article is looking really good but note the copyright problem with the REX robot image. Good luck! - Tutmosis 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Note Article is now a FAC, its candidacy page is here
A core topic in biology, medicine, biochemistry and biotechnology. The article is intended to be a wide introduction and comments on both content and formatting for a future FA candidacy are very welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Overall this is a strong article on subject that is so broad it is difficult. I think a better job could be done identifying daughter articles but maybe they do not exist yet. I think when you are done this will be a great blue-print for other empires/kingdoms/domains and I hope someone tackles the other six articles as they are important core topics. -- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to double-check that it makes sense to treat the 3-domain system as authoritative. I haven't read anything particularly recent about prokaryotic relationships, but some of the most recent I have seen were skeptical. Gupta (1998) [10] and Cavalier-Smith (2002) [11] for instance argue that archaebacteria more likely developed from Gram-positive bacteria instead of forming a separate domain; Palaeos has a quick discussion of some objections. Obviously this is a minority point of view, but is it one that has since been discredited, or is it something we should acknowledge as a possibility?
In any case we should make sure none of the examples are Archaea. Right now Thermoproteus is mentioned, and it sounds like it's meant as a representative bacterium. I don't know if any bacteria are comparable, but if one exists it should be used instead, or the sentence should be changed. Josh 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has had a series of improvements made recently, and in order to imrove it further it would seem appropriate for other editors to comment and add their input to the article. I think that most of the sections could be expanded more, so suggestions as to what else to include in the article would be a huge help. Comments on improving the language/tone/style of the article would also be appreciated. Rossenglish 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made significant improvements to this page, given a limited amount of available information and a lot of available misinformation, such as claims that it is a one-man band. I don't know any information about the other band members, except that there is a picture in the album of them showing two keyboardists in addition to Free at the Moog, a guitarist, and two percussionists. This is the only picture of the band on the album cover, though it is fragmented several times. The liner notes' only mention of the band is that it consisted of Free in the studio with "a bunch of fellow players" and several references to them as a group. It took a lot of web research to determine that these were the band and not just the arrangers, engineers, and songwriters of three tracks, and that was done quite a while ago, and now the only hits I can get are for things I generated. I trust it has been adequately cleaned up since the request, whcih came before I got to it. -- Scottandrewhutchins 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope I helped. Seegoon 16:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
looking for some direction on how to improve this article. let me know what you think is missing, needs improvement, or any other ideas you have. thanks! Randella 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A well-written, comprehensive article on FA path. Comments/criticism welcome. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok you've cut/paste a lot of info from the mother article. While that is quite acceptable, you need a lot of in-depth information on this subject. "Fundamental rights" equates with "civil rights," "human rights," etc. You will need to dig up a lot of data on the different problems faced by people in India and what the government is doing or not doing. You will need to write about what has happened in states with insurgencies or similar law/order problems: Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, Tripura, Bengal, Bihar, Gujarat. Police abuse during the emergency, the Bhagalpur jail abuse, extra-judicial killings, rape in Delhi, etc. One important element is how "Fundamental rights" work out in courts. What judicial decisions, precedents and historical trends in judicial philosophy exist? How have governments worked on legislation and individual cases? And of course, the criticism from various sources. Happily, you have the 2 FACs of FR/DP/FD to guide you on the language, structure, grammar, etc. Rama's arrow 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{fact}}
s.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has failed what was probably an unwise GA nomination, recently been rated as B-class in WP:BIO and had a previous PR. I feel it's at a new level now, with minimal sycophancy and plenty of citations. Any input whatsoever would be appreciated; I have a goal of this achieving GA status in not-too-long. Seegoon 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts:
*The second paragraph of "Genre" needs better referencing. At the moment, it sounds like original research.
It's not too far off GA standard, but still needs a bit of work. Trebor 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
An article on a Hilary Duff album that I've recently expanded. I've tried to make it as comprehensive as possible (including making separate articles for the radio singles) without delving into unnecessary detail, but I definitely think somebody unfamiliar with the article should take a look; my eyes have glazed over completely and I know I'm not able to notice problems. It would be great if anyone could provide suggestions on how to elevate it to good article or featured article standard. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to request some impartial reviews of the Sei Whale article to gather opinions of how the article can be improved and whether it meets featured article standards. The use of English in the article should be British English, so if you can hunt down American spellings of words and change them, that would also be appreciated since as an American myself, I don't notice them. Neil916 ( Talk) 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm practically the only contributor of information to this article in the last year and a half or so (most other contributors have only corrected typos, dealt with metainformation like categories and templates, and so forth), so I'd really like some outside input on how I can improve it to bring it up to Good article status. — An gr 18:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there does not seem to be a formal '+' addition symbol for adding text, so I will edit-in my reponse. I'm the guy who left the comment on Old irish phonology. My qualifications are in psychology, so I'm not a linguist, but I believe I have something to offer.
O Quiggin gives in 'A dialect of Donegal' almost 20 vowels and 20 diphthongs existant in the older speech only 100 years ago. While a lot has happened in the meantime, and of course, they were not all phonemic, I do think that due to the robust velar(ised) vs palatal(ised) distinction, the situation of consonants both sitting in or near the territory of vowels and passing thru them produces more vowel allophones than the 5 short and five long often postulated (above and beyond glides), and I feel these need to be covered in greater detail, if the object is to enable better pronounciation. The implication from many works on irish, is that there is a poorer vowel set that is actually the case.
If your articles are interested in the decay of the the phonological system, then the loss of fortis and lenis phonemics, particularly in the rhotics, and now, in the ls and ns (liquids as a whole -forgive me if I use out of date terminology). Also the use of labiodentals rather than the native bi-labials.
The article could in time be expanded to show how the grammar and one would suspect, the semantics are been altered to conform with english. Just today I read of the adverb construction 'go luath' been dropped to 'luath' when used in the sense of 'early' as in English the adjective has the same form. That would seem to me a strong influence from english that goes beyond the content of the article.
As for child studies, in the handbook from the Irish Institute for Applied Aplication of Linguistics, "Aqcuisition of Irish as a first language", there is the Donegal man Dónall Ó Baoill from Gweedore, I believe, with a short paper on bring up 2 kids in Dublin as natives. He also produced something about his own boy too, I think (if I can find it).
As for the Dublin prononciation, it is rank. ONe kid on the TG4 cartoon slot, voicing Superman's son, appeared to have no palatal quality at all. I would expect any native english speaker to have some broad and slender qualities, but this guy was so plain in sound it had to be heard to be believed, and in a language such as Irish, it was plain bizzare. You could mention how, to compensate, the whole phonological basis of inflection, in 1st declension nouns mostly, is changed from the consonants to vowel, as there is no dual set to use, so rather than 'rothar' /roh@r/ -->/rohir'/ for the plural and genitive singular, the same approximant is kept in both occasions, but the vowel changes. (Sorry about the transcription, but IPA does not work here).
As for sound files, I could do some till you get a native, as while not been a native, I ahve worked on the sound and it is quite gaelic in character
I will search for some published material on Dublin Irish.
"Donegal authors seem to be incapable of telling the difference between phonemes and allophones" -I agree. First time I looked at Wagner on Teilinn, I thought where are all these vowels coming from. However, I think the plan was with O Q. to offer a glimspe at a more greatly phonetic degree of rigour than had been attempted at the time, (maybe barring O Searcaigh, but I dont have his works on me).
Of course, it is not about pedagogy! Also, the comment on Dublin Irish was my own, but it was just a comment, with obviously little range in an organ like this.
Requesting peer review for GA or A-Class nomination.-- Magi Media 07:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You are very welcome to comment on this article. Is it already mature enough to promote it towards FA-candidate-procedure? Lear 21 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It generally is very good. I like the design and there are plenty of images to prevent it being too wordy. I'd say the two major issues are length and citations. At 69kb it is very long, sections may need to get their own subpages and be summarised - I don't think I'm qualified to judge which sections though. The citations also aren't particularly numerous. As much as I dislike judging an article on citations per word count (since it can and should vary depending on the article in question), there aren't a huge number. (Admittedly, it is one of those articles where almost every sentence could require a citation). Three examples (first 3 I found) where a cite is needed to support the claim:
*"Anyone who does not produce a valid ticket is given a 40-euro fine." FIXED
*"Core and fast-growing sectors are communications...and medical engineering." FIXED
*"Berlin is noted for its numerous cultural institutions, many of which enjoy international reputation. " (by whom) FIXED
Everything needed is there, just needs knocking into shape.
Trebor
22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Article | Total size | References | # Words |
---|---|---|---|
Seattle, Washington | 85K | 58 | |
Detroit, Michigan | 87K | 101 | |
San Francisco, California | 87K | 92 | |
Boston, Massachusetts | 68K | 25 | |
Hong Kong | 70K | 20 | |
Berlin | 73K | 72 |
Thanks for the comment Lear 21 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
**In addition, Babelsberg Studios and the important production company UFA are located just outside Berlin in Potsdam. - Important according to whom? Adjective probably should be stricken... FIXED
**Last part of "Performing arts" could use some touch-up. Ending paragraph is only 1 sentence. Last part of those orchestras reads like a list. FIXED
**Picture of the mayor could use a better caption. Also, may want to identify him as the one on the right :). FIXED
**Captions in general need expansion. (MyFest in Kreuzberg?) FIXED
Thanks for comment Gzkn ! That was very helpful. Some of the weak points are solved now. Thanks a lot Lear 21 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What bothers me a bit is that some parts of it read a bit like a brochure you'd find at a travel agency. Take the second and third paragraph of the lead section for example: it's just a listing of reasons one should visit or move one's business to the city. The poverty in the city (although, even in the economy section only the unemployment is mentioned) should, for example, be mentioned. Also: the most cited source in this article seems to be something similar to the brochure I mentioned. Although there's certainly nothing wrong with citing this source, using it to find information about Berlin is definately POV.
I also think the fact that Berlin and Germany wer divided after WWII should be explicitly mentioned in the lead section, since this is a very important event in the history of the city and readers, who don't know anything about German history, may wonder what East Berlin is supposed to be.(Done)--
Carabinieri
10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact sheet is an official and credible source, even though it is published for the World Cup. It also cites facts and figures in majority.The lead text is positively exposing the city´s character, citing very credible and recently published sources; UNESCO, New Tork Times, IHT, Newsweek. It reflects the international image of the city, which has been developed in the last 10 years. Lear 21 11:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that the fact sheet wasn't credible, I just think that if you use it you have to be aware of the fact that it's POV and you have to compensate that.
As to the lead text: I did not deny that the facts there are false or that they are not cited; I'm just saying that the point of this article should not be to tell how good Berlin is, but rather to give a balanced depiction of the city. And the article is not balanced right now IMHO. Another example for this is the quotes section. They are all complementing Berlin. I'm sure there are quotes by just as notable people making fun of/criticizing/etc Berlin.-- Carabinieri 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This page feels like its got potential, but it seems to be a bit stuck. Difficulty over possible systemic bias, a debate over how much info to publish on specifics of bomb disposal, and the like. If some new reviewers could come and add to it and also give some clear criteria as to what needs to be done to improve this article, it would be excellent. ManicParroT 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The main article is too short to introduce the overall topic. It defines the term rather providing an overview to the subject. Needs more footnotes. Needs context. You jump into the history too quickly before I really know what it is all about. I think it is fine to leave out the specific how-to's... Glenn4pr 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope these help. Seegoon 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a prime example I gave on the page about ignorant people adding where they shouldn't. FUSE is a firing device consisting of a black powder time-delay usually functioned by ignition. FUZE is any chemical, mechanical, electro-mechanical or other firing set designed to detonate the main charge or booster in a munition.
These are NOT interchangeable.
What Else Do Bomb Technicians Do? (changed to EOD Operators, a specific type of Bomb Technician) was taken from an entry in an encyclopedia.
The article has been peer reviewed. It was written by a peer.
-Shawn High Order1
The term "The Longest Walk" or sometimes "The Lonely Walk", was a term founded at the Felix Centre and 321 EOD and used by EOD operators to describe that moment you don the suit and make a manual approach. Its a reflection on how that short distance can seem a very long way when your walking upto a suspect device. There is a book by the title written by "Peter Birchall" and it uses a very famous photograph of an ATO in Northern Ireland making a manual approach to a car bomb under a religious sign declaring "Prepare to meet thy god!" " TheNose | Talk" 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Fuse is used in by the majority of NATO, European, Commonwealth & African countries to describe anything from a simple burning fuse, through to a complicated VT or proximity fuse on artillery or air dropped munitions. " TheNose | Talk" 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We have very little in the way of equipment, I added a short note on the invention of the wheelbarrow, but there is little else.
Perhaps Hook & Line, xray, pigsticks\ID (disruptors), these are all in the public domain a anyway and have been for about 20yrs or so.
I rewrote this article a few months back and - after several other editors made medium to minor contributions - it has stayed fairly stable. Now i want to work it up to GA and finally FA status and need comments on what it needs. Images are tough - there arn't many I can find without copyright issues. And I know the referencing leaves alot to be desirted - I was a 'noob' at the time. So that is the first fix... Any other comments? --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This article just achieved GA status. I am looking for any suggestions that can help improve style, readability, etc., in preparation for possibly posting it as an FAC. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I expanded and sourced the article recently and I believe it is on its' way towards FA now. However, I'm not a native speaker and the article should definitely be reviewed by someone who is. Besides bad prose, there's probably some weasel terms here and there, some statements that could do with a reference and so on. Thanks in advance for any comments. // Halibu tt 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This nearby star is somewhat smaller than the Sun, and in the past has been the subject of SETI searches. Recently a thick dust belt has been discovered in orbit. I'd like to bring this relatively short article up to GA status, but first I'd appreciate a peer review to look for any deficiencies or potential enhancements. Your comments would be helpful. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just rewritten this article and intend to nominate it for FA soon, so any comments for improvements would be appreciated. Yomangani talk 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
questia2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).