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've listed this article for peer review because…
the coverage of U.S. nuclear power stations on Wikipedia is woefully inadequate and this article, which was just expanded, is really the first attempt on Wikipedia to cover nuclear power stations in the Unites States in any kind of encyclopedic and detailed manner. My main concern is about any missing data, any technical information or data that an expert would be appalled at seeing missing. The article was written by a non-expert with some background in chemistry and nuclear power through the military and through university. Any opinions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
IvoShandor 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the asking for expansion finds only me listening, me new wikipedian. I'll patch below the proposal I put in the talk page.
Hi! As I wrote earlier I am expanding " St Mark's Basilica". My purpose is to save as more as possible of the present chapters, but most of them will be slightly changed to allow additions. I would like to change the section "Early history" to "History", adding a few details but especially moving there historical chapters inserted later in the article. I think this is necessary in order to unify the following sections ("The present building" and "Decoration") in an "Architecture" section divided in "Exterior" and "Interior", as in the article on it.Wikipedia [1]. Since this is my first contribution at all for wikipedia, please help me. Stefano Remo 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks,
Stefano Remo 20:48, 9 September 2007 (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 4 inch, use 4 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 inch.
[?]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Requesting peer review on this article. It's an older cartoon series on Cartoon Network, no longer in production, yet still on the air. The article itself should be fairly stable, but would like to get the highest quality possible, shooting for GA. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you. I know that's a fairly wide open request...
Yngvarr 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer wide open requests, so I can write about what I like. Here are a few things I would do to improve the article-
I am happy to review further, drop me a line on my talk page if you would like me to. J Milburn 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been proposed for review at WP:SPR and also transcluded into WP:PR so the debate will be in one place. However, it awaits a comment from the nominator on what kind of review is required. -- Bduke 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking of nominating the article for good article; I want to know if it meets the standards both in content and in style for a scientific article. I would appreciate any comments on it. I have spent so many ours with the article that I think a third party review will be very interesting. I know its not very specific; thanks anyway.-- Garrondo 08:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article (about one of the world's most important seas) was recently "Collaboration of the month" over at WP:ACID and thus has seen much improvement. A couple of times now people have requested either a peer review or a GA nomination, and I think a review would be extremely useful for the editors to further spruce up the article.
Thanks,
Totnesmartin 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A few random comments:
Of the major oceans, the North Atlantic is the saltiest; its salinity averages about 37.9 o/oo....- in parts per thousand, for which the symbol o/oo is used. [1]
In the Mediterranean, the seawater has a salinity of approximately forty (parts per thousand), while the Atlantic Ocean, on the other side of the Strait of Gibraltar, has a salinity of thirty five (ppt). [2]
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I believe that it is currently on the right track and has a lot of things going for it. Thanks,
Spikeleefan 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on this article off-and-on for over a year now, and think it's about time for some peer review. It failed WP:FAC a while back and has improved a lot from the comments made during the process. Suggestions and edits--especially with regard to accessibility to lay audiences, completeness of the article, context, etc.--would be much appreciated. -- David Iberri ( talk) 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for about 2 months now, have turned it from a stub to atleast a B grade article and have added about 30+ sources (it now has exactly 40 sources, including interviews). I just want some feedback and maybe to get this to a GA/FA status.
Thanks,
-- Shatterzer0 02:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments;
Generally a great article- obviously, my comments are very minor things. I'll take another look when you have worked on mine and LuciferMorgan's suggestions. J Milburn 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sworn to a Great Divide In early March, Soilwork began laying down the tracks for their seventh album, Sworn to a Great Divide. The last sentence of the section is the exact same as the firs sentence in this paragraph. I suggest remove the part in the previous paragraph.
I'll add more later. M3tal H3ad 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well there's not much advice left for me to give since the above editors have already presented a lot of the same concerns I have, but here's a bit:
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can become a featured article really soon. I just want to know what parts of it should be cleaned up and I would greatly appreciate any subsequent copyediting.
Thanks,
Noahdabomb3 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a candidate for including in the Wikipedia for Schools, yet is still a start-class article with mediocre formatting, no citations, and little coverage of such a broad and important topic. Animated cartoon, and many of the history of animation articles also need to be peer-reviewed, although I would like to start with this one first. -- FuriousFreddy 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA Thanks, Jac16888 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hoping to bring it to FA standard. DrKiernan 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
All in all, a well-written, informative, and enjoyable article to read. Nice work. Cla68 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review for this article because i have recently spent a few days completely re-writing the article and I am now thinking about submitting it as a good article candidate. Thanks, Childzy ¤ Talk 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Dont suppose a real person would have 5 minutes to browse through the article? The automated doesnt really help much. Thanks -- Childzy ¤ Talk 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
*Moving up north to Burnley - A touch informal, and Burnley is almost due west of Bradford anyway. --
Childzy ¤
Talk
09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This binary star system was the first to have it's distance from the Earth estimated. There is speculation about a companion planet, but this is yet to be confirmed. The article seems fairly complete, so I am wondering what else needs to be done. Any ideas?
Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have written it, and aside from adding a picture, am not sure how to improve it.
Thanks,
Scottandrewhutchins 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article deals with an important (and controversial) event in the Cold War and Latin American history, and needs to be brought up to good standards. I would like feedback on possible room for expansion (questions which are unclear to a third-party audience), dealing with RS (it relies heavily on one author, for example) and potential stylistic issues. Basically: if you're not Brazilian, and you're reading this article, what would you be interested in reading about in this moment in history and how do you think the article can better help you understand it?
Thanks,
Dali-Llama 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on it quite a bit recently. I've shortened the lists, added pictures, etc. I really need more suggestions though. I'm trying to get this article up to GA status. Connör ( talk) 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has benefitted from some recent work, and is related to a timely topic -- biofuels. Jatropha is a genus of (mostly) weeds with oily seeds that may prove to be a good feedstock for biodiesel. Work is going on right now to develop processes and determine economic feasibility. -- 72.94.157.91 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I'd like someone to check that It's ok on NPOV, especially in relation to references to (a) websites critical of adverts the subject has appeared in and (b) companies using articles by the subject as product endorsements.
I know that the article is in desperate need of some flesh, and also that it's link heavy.
Thanks,
DMcMPO11AAUK 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the request to the archive (i.e. withdrawn the request) as feedback would be a more appropriate mechanism than peer review at this point. Hopefully this will in a small way reduce the peer review backlog too. DMcMPO11AAUK 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have put in a lot of effort recently into improving this article's reliability, by introducing sources to unsourced claims, and other minor detail fixes that make a huge difference. I would like some feedback about how the article is written, what can be changed and what can be added to the article to promote it to FA. More references is probably an issue, but I'd like to hear more comments about the prose of the article, other wording issues, etc. Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it was requested by User:Reinoutr during a FAC. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I just added an article about anti-stuttering devices. I would appreciate anyone checking it over. The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something. For example, the article should have a picture of an anti-stuttering device, but the only pictures I have are of my company's devices. Also the list of companies in the final section should have links to the companies' websites, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia policy forbids or just discourages links to commercial websites.-- TDKehoe 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve this article as much as possible to bring it to GA (or even FA) standards. Most of it has been a solo work. I've added a notes and references sections (which was missing before), actual citations from the creators, references to its reception in Japan, ISBN numbers and publishing dates of the original Jump Comics volumes (which could branch off to a separate page, since there are so many different reprints of the series). I've also removed the "References in other works" section (as well as a previous Trivia section), which I believed didn't add anything to the article. I'm still not completely sastified enough though and I want some suggestions. For example, should I use a cover from the Jump Comics edition (which is the one at the moment), an English cover or the eBook edition that I was previous using? I also feel the lead section might be too long as well. Jonny2x4 07:18, 23 July 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, DrKiernan 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For about a year now, I have been working on a series of articles about Mary Wollstonecraft so that I can submit a featured topic about her. All of the other articles on her works are already FA or on their way to FAC - this is the last one that needs to be prepped. I would therefore appreciate constructive criticism regarding this article's organization, prose, and accessibility. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Awadewit,
I've had only a little time to brood over A Vindication of the Rights of Men, so these will be just preliminary pensives. I really liked the article the first time I read it, but now I'm beginning to fear that this will be a tricky article. I hope that won't be true but in any case I'll try to help out as (if) I can.
The present article describes Wollstonecraft's arguments very well; I wouldn't change those parts, but I think they would benefit from being organized more strongly and set off with other material. In particular, I feel that the chronology of the French Revolution, other responses to Burke, and Burke's arguments should be described more fully. You often introduce Burke's arguments by juxtaposing them with Wollstonecraft's; I wouldn't change that, but I would include a section dedicated to outlining Burke's arguments all in one place — twice told is thrice learned, no? The other responses to Burke and various people's responses as the French Revolution evolved might make a good final section, returning to the opening historical perspective and closing the circle. The present article is relatively short (~34 kb), so it has some room to grow.
Here's a humbly offered suggestion that might clarify what I was thinking of. You might structure the "Historical context" section with a converging funnel shape au Billy Budd, beginning by sketching the big picture of England and France in the 1780s, with their traditions and power structures, then confining attention to the French Revolution and its chronology (say, up to Napoleon's 18 Brumaire), then confining still further to Burke, e.g., "Burke wrote his pamphlet,..., near the beginning of the revolution (1790), as a letter to a young man X who had asked his opinion of the French Revolution...", then outline the letter's major arguments and tenor. My basic concern is that the present article doesn't really describe what Wollstonecraft was responding to; it seems like fighting with shadows. Admittedly, I haven't finished reading Burke's letter. I just started reading it yesterday and couldn't finish it before falling asleep; I was tired!
There's one other point that I need to mention as a sincere reviewer, although I can't really suggest anything specific to change. For me, the present article has an air of being perhaps too sympathetic to Wollstonecraft. I didn't notice it at first, perhaps because it matches my own thinking, but I seem to sense it now and worry that others will think likewise. It might be just me, though, since I was conscious of being overly sympathetic to Dorothy Wrinch in the Cyclol article, which feels somehow parallel.
Trying my best to give you a thoughtful review, Willow 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice article on a ground breaking Hollywood actress with many awards and more controversies. A lot of people has put a lot of effort into it. It has gone through tremendous surges of changes, of which the recent versions of 28 July 2007, 3 March 2007 and 14 December 2006 may be worth taking a look at. A lot many suggestions I could make on the current version are there in these previous versions. This pretty important article shows all the possibilities of becoming a "good" or even a "featured" article. Please, take a look. Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing that strikes me here is the whole tone of the article, as if it was written by a mass of fans. It really needs someone to edit the entire article, top to bottom - there are things out of place or over-emphasised, and a fair bit of peacock terms. In all, not an encyclopedic article, even though the information is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin ( talk • contribs) 2:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this sounds like a list of complaints (we Brits love a good moan), but acting on them will shape up the article immensely. If you want more help, then I heartily recommend WP:ACID.
Hope this all helps! Totnesmartin 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Citation! Can someone identify the places where an inline citation is a dire necessity and tag those lines with a {{ fact}} tag? Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I made some sample edits to get you started; there are a large number of MOS issues, including WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE. Solo years should not be linked, full dates should, and emdashes are not spaced on Wiki. The citations are not fully formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
She is a fascinating subject for an encyclopedia article. However, since it is an encyclopedia article, I feel that the subject throughout the article should be "Mansfield" instead of "Jayne." In some sentences, for instance, it will say, "Jayne was known for her great acting abilities." That sounds too informal to me. Another issue: Do you really believe that she had an IQ of 163 or whatever? Do you know how rare that would be? I doubt it, and if I were writing the article, I would treat that with skepticism.
One of the things that I hope will be added is basically a modern analysis of Jayne Mansfield. For instace, what is her legacy today? Can you find any modern reviews of her movies, for instance? I am curious to see how people view her in the 21st century. How do feminists feel about her? Which entertainers have been insprired by her through the years? I would bet that Anna Nicole Smith tried to look like her, for instance. Good luck on your journey to Featured Article status. 138.67.44.69 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
After doing a complete rewrite of this article a month ago, it has received good article status and I intend to list it as a nominee for FA status here in the near future. I would appreciate any constructive input anyone has to make the process run as smoothly as possible.
Thanks,
Trusilver 16:25, 1 September 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, DTGardner 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There has been quite a lot of work done to Saint Patrick since the last peer review, and the article has been fairly stable for a while, so this seems like a good time to ask for a review. What needs added, removed, rewritten, referenced,...? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to FA standard, but I am unsure if the content and the standard of content meets such criteria. So I'd like to know what might keep this article from FA status or any other general suggestions for improvmenet. Thanks! - J Logan t: 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for feedback. I know how frustrating waiting can be for these! This article is in quite good shape, and I'm sure this can get to FA, but I think some work is needed. It looks like you were the primary author of European Parliament, an excellent article, you can largely use that article as your guide.
I've watchlisted this review and the article, and I'm happy to help with further improvements or to clarify my points above. -- JayHenry 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Listed because the above was a rapidly changing event that was in the media spotlight. Now with the sport moving on, the furore has calmed down, the article is edit-stable and has multiple references. Looking for suggestions as to how to get it up to GA for now. Many thanks Dick G 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I remember this. At an AfD. Hehe, that was amusing. Anyhoo, back to the review...
My first thought was that, as per WP:LEAD#Length, the opening is too short and doesn't summarize the article. I don't necessarily agree with that guideline in every instance, but in this case it highlights the article's biggest flaw (point two, below):
Done Slightly re-worked as wanted to farm off some of the content elsewhere
Dick G
Not done Only because I think it is important that the article emphasises the events during the Tour. It seems there is much less gravitas on the post-Tour developments - most of the talking/action occurred when Rasmussen exited . Thoughts?
Dick G
Done lifted the lead from OP article which seemed to work
Dick G
Done where most of the effort has gone. Am not multi-lingual (shame) so have had to crib second-hand references from British media but it seems to work
Dick G
Done as regards the latter suggestion. To merge them into overview seems to blur the chronology and would burden the Overview section which is better off as an indicative summary of how the events unfolded. Adding detail of Vinokourov's denials, Astana's voluntary suspension or Contador's protestations seems to clutter that ideal.
Dick G
Done wish I could take the credit but not my work unfortunately. With expanded sections the article probably needs more images. Any ideas/assistance?
Dick G
Other, minor issues:
Done think I've picked them all up now
Dick G
Done in part. I am not keen on spelling out placings as I think it is ugly and unnecessary though happy to defer to any MOS sticklers.
Dick G
Hope all this helps, regards, -- DeLarge 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: reading over my comments this morning, I'm not 100% that I did a decent job of communicated my suggestions. I therefore created a sandbox at
User:DeLarge/2007 Doping to illustrate what I meant; hopefully that'll help.
Done in part. Comments above refer to any departures from the suggested order
Dick G
Also, after re-reading the article, one small issue I have is that because riders aren't excluded immediately (i.e. they're tested in stage 11, but not excluded until five stages later), it's not immediately obvious that the article's in chronological order. For example, I'd suggest changing "Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni tested positive for testosterone after stage 11, in which he finished 102nd. After finishing stage 16, he was immediately pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis." to "Immediately after he finished stage 16, Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni was pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis. He had tested positive for testosterone in a sample taken after stage 11, where he finished 102nd." That might better emphasize the "chronologic" (sic) of the page.
Done Think I've addressed this now as article is more chronological. Happy to be shown any errors or fuzzy chronologic
Dick G
Further regards, -- DeLarge 10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Current event, long-term goal is for the article to pass FAC, would appreciate some relevant suggestions, and some bit of copy-editing.
Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Hildanknight
Great work, Mailer Diablo! The article has considerable GA potential - do nominate it for the GA drive. Once the event and the article stabilises, the article will hopefully be ready for a GA nomination; should the nomination succeed, consider aiming for FA.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because its a GA article that I want to upgrade into a Featured Article, which would be my first. I just need some advice for it.
Thanks,
Mit ch32 contribs 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know how it could be improved. I have only recently started editing this article and would like it to eventually become a good article. I think there are too many small sections such as Notable Managers and would like the layout to be more in line with the highere quality team articles
Thanks,
Eddie6705 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty simple to stat with. Every dubious fact needs citation. Buc 16:53, 7 September 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, DTGardner 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Some pointers:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been judged an "A" rated article accorinding to WikiProject MiddleEarth, and to improve it further it needs to be reviewed by independant Wikipedians.
Thanks,
Davémon 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, GA, hoping for FA in the future. Based on FAs, Cape Feare, Homer's Phobia, Homer's Enemy and You Only Move Twice. Any comments at all are welcomed. Thanks, Gran 2 19:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for comments on all parts of the article. I know that the contemporary section is underdeveloped. Any ideas on that section - and other sections?
Thanks, Merbabu 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed two GA nominations already. Since the last it has been improved greatly and we would like any feedback on how we can push this important article to GA or even FA status. Thanks. ornis ( t) 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is much better than the last time I read it. Kudos to the editors. My points are mostly regarding prose and organization - they are minor. I hope to see this article promoted through GAC and FAC in the next few months.
Content:
Paragraph structure is a weakness of the article.
There are far too many "this" and "these" statements - they are hard to find the referents far and often confuse the prose. Try to reduce the use of "this".
Layout:
The article could use a careful copy editor:
The box at the end reads As Darwin's work spread and became better known, references to it began appearing in the popular culture of the day. Some of the better-known Victorian references to it include - Please reword this so that the inclusion of the Tennyson quote makes sense. Even if others used the Tennyson quote to refer to evolution, it was not written as a reference to Darwinism, which is what this explanation implies.
I hope this helps. Awadewit | talk 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is a former FAC, but failed to meet the criteria at the time largely because of concerns over the prose. Any comments on how to improve the prose would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Golem88991 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
After adding to the article on Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, I checked the link to Mary McLeod Bethune and noticed there were no references. In attempting to search for them, I noticed that almost the entire article was cut and pasted from other sources. I am a most unlikely biographer for Bethune, but the more I read about her, the more impressed I was by her life and the more astonished I was that her article was not of a higher quality. I worked on it for several days, rewrote most of it, and referenced everything I could find. If not for the information I added, her article should be featured for her extraordinary life. Moni3 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] Thanks,
DrKiernan
07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)I would like to eventually get this article to FA status. DTGardner 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I recently improved this article. It's currently a good article, but I'd like to get it featured. Specifically; is there anything missing, does the prose need improvement, is the language too technical and most importantly what does it need before it's ready to become a featured article. I have asked a photographer to release one of his images of the engine under a free license so hopefully there will be at least one more image soon. Thanks in advance, James086 Talk | Email 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see what i need to elevate this article, it needs a lot of work, just would like to get an idea of everything i need.
Thanks,
DTGardner 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately I’d like to get this to featured status but obviously there is a way to go. Right now I’m more just wanting to know if the info that is there is ok. At the moment I’m struggling to find anything to put in the “Style of play” and “off the pitch” sections. But clearly as his career develops I’ll be able to add more. Unfortunately I’m away for the next two weeks so I won’t be able to address any issues until then. Buc 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The depth in coverage is definitely there from my first glance at the article. I will try to fix as many phrasing and spelling issues as I can. I will not be modifying the substance, just minor fixes, so don't worry about me chopping off content. I have however, removed some parts which I found to be over-detailed or insignificant encyclopedically, but again, they won't be noticeable. Here's some of my suggestions:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 yards, use 30 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30 yards.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through it and improved grammar, made a few copyedits and added endashes. I think improvements needed are:
Those are the main improvements needed to be made as far as I can see. Apart from that it looks like it's shaping up to become a very good article. Good work Buc. Sir-Nobby 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Overall the article looks in good shape, keep up the good work. Dave101→ talk 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Getting this to FA status - or more specifically, keeping it there - will be a challenge; at 21 Milner is a fraction of the way through his career, making it likely the information will become outdated. That said, the article is in good shape in terms of comprehensiveness and isn't too far from Good Article level. Specific comments:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this article has certainly drawn a lot of feedback! Anyway, I think the article is in a nice shape now. My only grouse is that it is a *little* bland. But at least that avoids POV problems! Good job, although I would also add that, given Milner is still young, one's got to watch out for this article ballooning into a juggernaut. I think as seasons go by, sections will be condensed naturally so it's still all good. Chensiyuan 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is good enough to be a featured article. Saudi9999 06:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A short introduction: this place is not for discussing about featured article, but for requesting a peer review to this article. Here is my PR, in any case.
Here's all. I hope my suggestion are useful for you. -- Angelo 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it's GA material, my friend and I also wanted to know what we should do if it's not. We've been working very hard on it, and the only problem we can see is the limited source pool.
Thanks,
-- Kkr ouni /Ккроуни /ΚκρΩυνι 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
General recommendations:
Specific recommendations:
These last two comments will involve the most work; maybe even a complete rewrite:
Hope all that helps, -- DeLarge 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Just failed FAC so I'm giving it a PR. Buc 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments: (p.s. Sorry for the delay, been busy!) (p.p.s. I haven't had time to fully read the comments above, so if anything overlaps then I apologise now.)
This article need thorough and detailed proof reading. There are some horrible, obvious flaws that really should not be there if you are at all serious about asking people to spend time reading an article. You need to have the courtesy to present them with something which is as good as you can make it. Unless you completely flunked your GCSE English exam then there are many many errors in here which you ought to be embarassed about leaving in. Although I have given you plenty of specific sentences as examples, the general comments apply to the entire document, and are certainly not limited to those examples which I have chosen to highlight. Just because I haven't mentioned a specific problem does not indicate that it doesn't exist. You need to spend time reading this article slowly and thoroughly, do not be tempted to skim through and assume that is enough. I have just spent two and a half hours reading, thinking and writing these comments. It probably would have been better use of my time to simply do a proper copyedit straight away, but as you have shown a genuine desire to improve yourself as well as this article I thought it only fair to explain my thinking in detail. Sorry if some comments seem a bit picky or harsh, but the standard for prose in the FA criteria is that it is of near-professional quality. That is a tough ask, and will take much time and effort. I'll come back and do a copyedit when you have had a crack at the issues which Alex and I have raised here so far (and any others which subsequent reviewers make, of course!). I hope that by spending so much time slicing and dicing this text you can better appreciate my comment in the FAC that this would need a near-complete rewrite to get to FA status. There are few sentences, and no paragraphs in the entire article, that are as good as they could be. However, you have a good base to start from and an interesting and engaging subject. You could really use more historical context for Kubica's accident and Hamilton's victory and this would lift the article above the mundane. Good luck with the work! Pyrope 15:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The main concerns at the article's failed FAC were that the article did not correctly describe the extent of the fandom, and that at times it confused the "fandom" with the "popularity" of HP. I feel that I've cleaned these parts up since then, and I hope that, after the results of this PR, I can resend the article to FAC. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:36, 4 September 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, DTGardner 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA standard. I previously nominated it for FA, see HERE, but the article didn't make it. I think most of the concerns were addressed but I am looking for any comments that can improve the article. Especially the FA 1a criterion ((a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.) might be an issue.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide, Voorlandt 06:46, 8 September 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, DTGardner 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Archived PR: Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester United F.C./archive1
This article has improved a lot since the last Peer Review, and I would like it to be reviewed with a view to getting it to FA status in the near future. Thanks. - PeeJay 18:48, 9 September 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, DTGardner 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The History section is too long. -- Kaypoh 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
For the past couple months now, I've been constantly tweaking this article; the previous version was a wreck, consisting of barely more than an incomplete discography. I've added as many references as I could find, and have constantly reworking pieces of it. My eventual goal is to get it to at least WP:GA status. There're some parts I'm still uncertain on the quality of, however. Basically, I'm looking for the following:
Personally, I'd also like to get a better picture of the band (the only pic shows only half the band), but I don't have the resources. I would appreciate if someone could help there, too.
Thanks,
Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 18:16, 10 September 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, DTGardner 20:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've recently done a major re-write hopefully towards FAC and I want to see what else needs to be done.
Thanks,
Pilotguy 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary
You've still got some work to do, but great job so far; it's definitely in better shape than it was. I have some suggestions.
*Students and faculty: Calling it a "unique school" is almost definitely not NPOV, if you ask me. I've worked at and attended several colleges and they all claim to offer small class sizes. My grad school averages 15 students per class, so 30 at UNC Pembroke is not small anyway. See the NPOV problem? I'd also be okay with putting those two paragraphs together into one. Oh, and remember it should be "Students and faculty" with the small f. Done
*Sports, clubs, and traditions: (again, capitalization) Why italicize "Braves"? Also, the line: Due to its legacy as a Native American school, the Braves are typically not targeted in movements to change or ban Indian team names desperately needs citations. Also, expand the other two subsections on Clubs and Traditions, with sources where possible. Done With expanding for the most part.
*General: The article might be overdoing it on pictures (they're great, though). Consider moving the free images to Wikimedia Commons and creating a category you can link to from this article (ask me on my talk page if you need help with that specific suggestion). Once that's done, you can consider which are the more vital images and be able to make them a bit bigger without so much competition from other images. Done Disagree here but two images have been removed nonetheless. I can see you've probably already seen the recommended article structure over at the Universities wikiproject. Good call.
Well, I hope I was helpful! Good luck on continuing to improve this article! -- Midnightdreary 13:33, 8 September 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, DTGardner 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys. I'll try to work on this stuff later on (I've already removed two images). Pilotguy 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has had a lot of improvement in the last couple months but I'm no longer sure what else could be done to improve it. I also hope to use lessons learned from this article to continue to improve other television episode articles. I'd like particular comments on how the article is doing in regards to WP:EPISODE. Any advice on what to get rid of and what to expand would be appreciated as well.
Thanks,
Star dust 8212 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
All of those lists at the bottom of the article (characters, Fansworth's inventions etc.) seem pretty trivial, and should probably be removed if you want to go to GA with this. But other than that, it does look good, and I can't see any other glaring problems. Good job. Gran 2 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As a part of an improvement drive over at WikiProject Roller Coasters, I'd quite like to get this article up to scratch. I'm already aware that there's a severe lack of references and I'm already working on getting them in. What I think the article really needs is a review from the POV of a non-enthusiast, with the intention of getting this up to GA. Many thanks! Seaserpent85 Talk 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
VisitorTalk 08:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has recently become a GA, after a full re-write, a peer review, and a GA review critique. I'm hoping to bring it up to FA status in the next few weeks. It's currently 31k, has 25 sources and 9 good images. I'm wondering what kind of changes need to take place in order for it to become an FA. I'm willing to do the work myself, just need some critical eyes. Thanks a bunch! Nswinton\ talk 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article about an important mid-20th century American college and professional Canadian football player has been well referenced and cited using a variety of reputable sources. I believe the article should be rated above "B" class, and is worthy of being a "good" and even a "featured" article. I am open to any suggestions to make this article better. Sundevilesq 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 yards, use 2 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 yards.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been working up the page, and have incorporated most, if not all, of Yannismarou's helpful suggestions. I would REALLY like to move this article up to a GA level, and maybe even get it featured. Sundevilesq ( talk) 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello editors! World of Warcraft is one of the most popular MMORPGs in the world yet it is only a GA quality. A FA quality article would help increase knowledge of such games and would be the first MMORPG to become featured on Wikipedia. While the article is pretty good, some parts could use improvement. Therefore I am looking for someone to critique the article and provide advice on where improvements should be made to the article to help get it to FA quality. Thanks to anyone who helps :) -- Hdt83 Chat 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is on a metal drummer, would appreciate any feedback to get it read for FA. M3tal H3ad 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's all for now, I will take another look later. J Milburn 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some more points- J Milburn 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The research and references are fine, but the writing style needs significant editing to bring it up to encyclopedic standard.
The article often bumps together parts A and C without mention of part B of the story.
"With the drumkit, Lombardo purchased his first record..." implies that he got a really bad deal trading in the kit at a pawn shop for one LP! This sentence should be rewritten. Did his father include the record along with the kit?
Moby Dick reference jumps from "was not familiar with the material" to "after doing so" (playing the song with mastery, I assume you meant). Need a transitional sentence.
"...parents threatened to put him in a military school." Did they withdraw the threat? Did he have to give up late night events until leaving home?
"As Slayer's line-up was complete..." Did the band already have everyone but a drummer? The article jumps from King's own guitar collection, presumably at his home, to a full band taking the show on the road.
Hoglan appears and promptly disappears from the article. Is he really relevant?
Lombardo's wife appears without a mention of when they were married.
"Grip" section jumps from appropriate past tense into present tense discussion of events in the past.
He had to miss the 2005 Fantomas tour. Did he ever tour with them?
Should change to "Ten years after departing from Slayer..." and include the name of the manager.
The Christy quote should either cite the exact words for "blown away," or the summary should be rewritten to a less cliche term.
Finnish should be capitalized.
VisitorTalk http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Dave_Lombardo&action=edit§ion=4 Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Dave Lombardo (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit of the entire article. However, the prose still needs attention and is the weakest component of the article as it stand. I recommend having another editor read and copyedit the page. The article in general seems ok, but I'm not too sure about the exensive use of reviews. Certainly there neds to be critical recognition of Lombardo's work, but since he's only a component of a complete group, single out sentences in reviews that mention him often seems like stretching the point. I'll try and offer more comments soon. WesleyDodds 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked very hard on this article, especially to find sources (having trouble with a few). I just wondered if it could be improved, is it B-class yet? Could it make GA? Any comments would be appreciated. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be edited, revised, and improved by another editor. I've contributed a large majority of the content and feel I can't take the article much further. I think the article could be a top rated article, even a feature article, with some more work done to it.
Thanks,
User:calbear22 18:44, 31 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, DrKiernan 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review in an attempt to get this article rated above "Start" class. The article is referenced, is relevant, and gives a detailed biography of an important old school hip hop/ electronic music pioneer, Kurtis Mantronik. The article should rate, at a minimum, a "B" class. Sundevilesq 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… Friday Night Lights is a growing article and grow articles usually need a GA/FA sub-article to become better. I've adde references, summary, what else?
Thanks,
Twlighter 21:25, 9 September 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, DTGardner 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This article on the 36-year old Project Gutenberg digital library is in decent shape, but I'd like to find out if there are any suggestions for improvement. It does need some additional references. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is good but not great and I and others would like this article to be the first to be given a Good Article status for the Cartoon Network project. Just a few pointers as to what we can tighten up and expand upon. No automatic peer review suggestions please, we plan to action upon those soon. treelo talk 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
*Please see
automated peer review suggestions
here. Thanks,
APR
t
17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary I don't think this article is ready for GA just yet, though I don't know what the standards are from the WP:Cartoon Network. Here's my two cents...
I hope to get the article of Fefe Dobson to Featured Article status and I would like suggestions for what needs to be done. Rainer1 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Epeefleche 05:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary
Best of luck. -- Midnightdreary 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Randy Orton is a bright upstart in the wrestling industry, and because he happened to start his career at a time when most wrestling fans began to blab info on their computers, there's a wealth of info on him. He's a popular wrestler, a controversial figure in his own right, and a colorful character in the ring. Although far from a mainstream celebrity or a popular influential person, his biography, because he is so well-known among today's wrestling community, can serve as a guide for the pages of other wrestlers.
Truth be known, most wrestling-oriented wikipedians lack the necessary perspective to put the details of his life in order; with the help of ordinary editors, who are not fans of the sport and who will not give value to useless details, this page can become a major success for writing articles on wrestling subjects.
I appreciate all feedback! Sincerely, -- Screwball23 talk 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been a GA for a while now and after I made a lot of changes to it I kind of left it alone for a while. It's not too far away from FA material I think, but I would like some suggestions as to how to get it on its way there. Sportskido8 15:59, 27 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, Hfarmer 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a few things for now:
-- Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 10:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to get this to featured article status. Any feedback is welcome. Help is particularly needed in reorganizing it. If anyone has additional information on the history of the game, please add that as well. Thanks,
Captain Zyrain 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article, more than deserving of featured article status.
This is the second time this article has been reviewed. I removed the original research that was discussed in the first review, and sourced alternative analysis of the ballad. Although I still have significant grammatical editing to do, content-wise do you all think this article meets the FAC?
Thanks, APAULCH 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ballad of the White Horse/archive1
Review by Midnightdreary
I'm purposefully reviewing this without looking at the previous peer review so if I'm repeating some of what was said there, that's why! I'm also not familiar with the poem so I'm giving this a complete set of fresh eyes. :)
I hope this was helpful. Best of luck on this article! -- Midnightdreary 13:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Response by APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It may take me a while to put all your reccomendations into effect. Here's a question:
Thanks, APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If your sources for the article are online, could you please link them? - Malkinann 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't post a link because it was in a limited-access database. I think you should be able to find the article in most databases or maybe from the journal Thought.
Do you think I should change it from a book-by-book analysis to a topic-by-topic analysis? That would make it easier to include other sources (if I can find more-the book is not well known). There is a little analysis in the book itself (as well as reviews of it when it was first published, which I may be able to use). I also have a homeschool study guide for it, which has a few excellent interpretations but I don't know if it was really "published" or just printed off someone's personal computer for sale.
I agree that the quotations make it long and cumbersome, but I also think they help illustrate some of the points made. However, this probably isn't necessary. Are there any guidlines or additional opinions?
Thanks, APAULCH 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any numerical ID. The volume info is Thought Vol. LXVI, No. 261, June 1991, pp. 161-78
APAULCH
21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hope to make this a FAC after this PR. Buc 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Its in a very good state. Not too far off a FAC now. Mattythewhite 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As a relatively unknown composition of a fading genre, I'd like to get feedback on what improvements can be made to get this to the highest possible quality. ALTON .ıl 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I do wonder about the Commons audio files: doesn't sound like a Finale output; are you sure? Pity they're so short and end with a sudden yanking out of the texture. Tony 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your edits to the articles and the suggestions. It's at FAC now. ALTON .ıl 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Current GA. Article failed at FAC a few weeks ago. I think images, referencing and completeness are pretty good, it's really everything else I'm worried about ;) Having said that, comments on anything are more than welcome. Thanks. Chwe ch 19:37, 1 September 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, Aqwis 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for comments on the entire article. Sorry to not be more specific, but I guess I'm looking to improve everything that I can with it. I can be more specific, now that I think about it. Ultimately I'd like to get this to FA status, so any suggestions for how to improve with that goal in mind are what I'm looking for. Thanks,
JCO312
21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the sentences seem a little on the terse side, which (to me at least) hinders the flow slightly. But overall the article seems fine. I only have a few suggestions:
I hope this was helpful. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm attempting again for a push to FA, and I think that I've included nearly everything I can that is verifiable, but my main concern is the dreaded 1a), so I would like opinions on ways to improve the text of the article. Will ( talk) 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is about one of the handful of asteroids to be visited by a spacecraft, and the largest thus far. I've tried to expand the content to cover what is currently known based on scientific publications. Is there anything else that you would like to see presented? Do you have any suggestions for improvements? Is it too dry and academic? My goal is to bring it up to GA status. Thank you!!! — RJH ( talk) 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Snake scales is presently a GA. I would be grateful for the following kinds of feedback -
For your info: the snake scale names in the sections dealing with nomenclature were bolded intentionally for maximum utility for readers to help them follow the annotated sketches effectively.
Thanks in advance, AshLin
Review by Totnesmartin
The first think that strikes me is the essayish tone of the article. it has a unique "voice", as if written by a single, well-informed editor - and in fact this is almost the case. It would need some rewriting to resemble a typical WP article, as well as some tweaking of the explanations - for instance, the fairly well-known Dorsal is explained in the article, but the obscure Mental groove isn't. There are some other problems as well, such as the opening statement that scales are important to snakes because it classifies them as reptiles - it's not important to a snake' how it's classified by us. So yes, this is a good article but it needs style editing. The picture at the top is beautiful.
I can't comment on the scientific accuracy as it's outside my area. 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking here. We're mainly looking for many more good references and sources, as well as expanding a few key section. I will add more information when I log in from home. Reason turns rancid 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary:
I have taken the HdB page from start-class through a successful GA review. It has been thoroughly combed over by the inestimable Awadewit, and I'm interested in submitting it to FA candidacy. I've worked really hard on it (to which he can attest), and I've got my eyes on the FA star. Thanks in advance. — Scartol · Talk 01:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is modeled after the various Simpsons episode FAs and I think this page is looking pretty good, although some of the prose could be better. -- Scorpion 0422 03:56, 7 September 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, DTGardner 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
After making this article DYK quality a couple months back, I want to know what needs to be done to make this either a GA or at least a B-class article. All comments welcome. Wizardman 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a bit, I got a wee bit more information I could add, but a search for waht you asked for came up empty, sorry. Wizardman 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent much time expanding it, adding references and extra information and would like to see it qualify as a GA. Any recommendations would be greatly appreatiated.
Thanks,
DrWeetAls 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This article just passed a GA review. As the sole major contributor, I would like to get wider constructive criticism and suggestions to ready the article for an FA nomination. Thank you! -- Melty girl 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]1 year has passed since this article's last nomination for FA status. I believe the article has improved a lot since then, and I would like to see if it can be improved further and if it is FA material. This article previously underwent a Peer Review, which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Puerto Rico/archive1. -- Boricua e ddie 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would really like feedback from uninterested parties on this topic. The article is all about the controversey surrounding a given scientific theory of transsexualism, where the controversey took on a life of it's own. For example, there are people who would take vehement offence to the use of the phrase "scientific theory" in relation to this topic. Hence I feel a need for a peer reivew by uninterested parties. I have tried to be neutral and as fair as possible to everyone. I want to know if others also think this article is truly NPOV. I also want to know if there are any suggestions on how I could describe the ad hominem arguements, in a shorter form, while not seeming to take sides. So far I have used quotes, perhaps I should summarize and paraphrase? Any suggestions at all would be taken and followed.
Thanks,
Hfarmer 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Oil shale/archive1
After first peer review spin-off articles based on main sections were created and article sections summarize spin-off articles. Following spin-off articles are listed also for the peer review:
The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Beagel 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale geology, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale reserves, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale extraction, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale economics, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including History of the oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Environmental effects of oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've originally started this article to fill a red link, but then I started taking interest in finding sources, so it progressively expanded to reach a respectable 30KB. I've attempted to source it the most carefully possible, and it seems to be mostly ok on this side; what worries me most is 1) the absence of images 2) the prose, as I'm no native 3) I've been quite extensive in the description of the constitution as approved in 1996, maybe too extensive; what do you think? Any suggestion, even brief hints, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks in advance, Aldux 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Speak a few solid days getting this to GA, and now I need some opinions to take it further. Mainly on the layout of the career, if anyone has any sources to expand the early and personal life sections, and the prose (which I think needs work), and anything else. Thanks. Gran 2 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hurray for Hank Azaria! I've loved The Simpsons and Mr. A for years, and I'm delighted to see him get such a thorough, well-written page. The structure of the Career section could use some work; see below.
Here are some notes, in order of their appearance in the article.
I hope this is helpful. Again, nice article. Good luck with it, and drop me a line if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Done most of the stuff, I disagree with some of your structural propsals, but will consider some form of them. I've gone through each of your points to explain what I have done. Thanks for the review. Gran 2 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review on the advice of an editor at requests for feedback. Basically I want to know where to go next, I've improved the article a lot in the last month or so and I want to keep momentum. I know there is no picture, but I'm stuck as to where to get one (i was planning to take one on saturday but she didnt turn up). Aside from that any suggestions are welcome. Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place for this or if anyone feels this is a waste of the process. Cheers, Jdcooper 12:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is on the oldest shows that the project I'm connected to has and I would like to have this article worthy of at least Good Article or better status. Any advice on syntax or length would be appreciated.
Thanks, treelo talk 12:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have kind of hit a brick wall for improving it. Not because I think it's great, quite the opposite, but I just need more input. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I hope that John Mayer can some day be a featured topic.
Thanks,
Esprit15d 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it generally conforms to WP:SONG, but I don't think it's perfect, and would welcome input from the community. Since this song has had a wonderful year of notability, I think it would also be good for this article to have a higher standard of quality.
Thanks,
Esprit15d 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant improvements to the page and I am looking where I can go further, beyond charting the progress of the character through the 40 books. I'm strongly considering adding detail from The Wishing Horse of Oz.
Thanks,
Scottandrewhutchins 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it into shape for Featured Article status. Since it's about a fictional character, all the annoying but vital aspects of WP:WAF apply, so I guess the question is how does it do in terms of out of universe. One note: I know the "...in other media" section is too brief right now, but anything else, point out here.
Thanks, David Fuchs ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I worked on this article sometime ago (february-may this year) - after I noted it in DYK; it was listed as GA in June and nothing much has been done to it since then. I would like to get this article to higher status, however I already have done pretty much all I could do for it so I decided to put it up here to see what else should be done, if everything is clear, especialy to people unfamiliar to topic. Thanks -- Xil/ talk 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This good article is WikiProject Harry Potter's best hope for its next featured article. Any comments and criticisms are solicited before it braves featured article candidacy. Happy-melon 17:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Last night, I wrote this review over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Emma Watson -- today, I went looking for it on Wikipedia:Peer_review and saw only the above review. I'm pasting it in here so that you don't miss it. -- Melty girl 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is comprehensive and well-sourced. For me, the main issue to address is the confusing organization of the sections of the article. Their order and hierarchy seems confused, and the section names are often misleading. But these things are easily fixed. First, about the broader outline of the article:
Onto organization within the sections:
I think that once you rearrange the article some, you'll also find yourself tightening up some of the language and the flow. You've got a great start; I think you just need to be a little more strict about the organization of the article. Cheers, Melty girl 03:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I just corrected a minor style thing. I'm moving right now, so I don't have time to continue this process more deeply, but I noticed that there are still at least two placement things that were not addressed, if not more: The new Celebrity section has items that do not relate to her Celebrity status. And why does the feminism paragraph start with "Finally"? Is it because it used to follow something else where "Finally" made sense? I strongly suggest that you be more ruthless about organizational issues and related writing/flow issues before braving FAC. Have fun with the article. -- Melty girl 00:45, 1 September 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, DTGardner 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Article currently at GA status. Hopefully with the comments we get, me and 4u1e will hopefully be able to improve it, and possibly nominate it for FA status in the forthcoming months. Davnel03 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
between a number and the unit. Instead of 5 litre, use 5 litre so that you don't get the number on one line and the litre/inches/pounds on the next line.
I do not have too many things to add, just some things that stuck out to me as odd:
I think that covers all the tiny things I found. The359 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through your article and understood it well. Having no prior knowledge I thought it was certainly clear and I didn't get lost. As i'm not sure about the actual technical stuff i'll comment more on the layout etc..
This article is well written and referenced as far as I can see. Hope these few comments help, Bobbacon 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
An amazing read, and I have little to add here. My main concerns regard the lede. Comments:
Overall the article was an excellent read. It manages to explain the technical aspects of the car without excessive jargon and neatly covers both the physical car and it's achievements & performances. Anyway, onto the feedback:
That's pretty much all I can come up with for now, the rest of it looked really good. AlexJ 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A single by the American alternative rock band Pixies. Looking to take this to featured status soon, so I would appreciate comments on its comprehensiveness and prose. CloudNine 13:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Peer review by Midnightdreary
This is a great song, and a great article. Here are some suggestions:
Overall, a good article, very easy to read and interesting. Keep up the good work and consider some of my suggestions. As much as it pains me to say it, look at " Hollaback Girl" for a featured song article. Follow their formula and you may be on your way to getting this to FA too. Best of luck! -- Midnightdreary 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on this article lately and was wondering what else could be done to bring this up to a GA standard? Comments appreciated. Timeshift 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hoping to improve this article to Good Article status but I have kind of hit the wall with it. ANy help appricated.-- Vintagekits 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has a lot of good information and referenced data. Its main problems seem to be organization and grammar (spelling and usage). I'd recommend some thematic reorganization (see notes below) and an afternoon with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, going through and fixing the little bits.
Note: This is my first peer review. I apologize in advance if I lead you astray in any areas. Also, I just noticed that someone did a review of sorts on the article's talk page. I don't think I'm duplicating anything written there, but I apologize if this is the case.
Rather than go through and pinpoint every item which catches my eye, I'll end my review here. Good luck with the article and let me know if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope to have this article brought up to FA status. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kinston eagle 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary
This is really a great article; you've definitely done a lot of work and it's to be commended. I'm going to focus on only a few sections but give you an overwhelming amount of specific details about those sections. Here we go...
(Taking a quick breather... and here we go again...)
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to improve to good article standard or even featured article standard. The article is well written, but i think it still have space to be improve, and i also want to know how to write a long lead section in this article.
Thanks,
Aleen f1 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Citation needed....many believed that the organisers did not have plans to deal with it...
Citation needed.Sources say there were only so many buses, which were quickly filled...
Citation needed.Many volunteers have been complaining about the lack of transportation needed to take them to their locations...
Otherwise, I think you have done good work thus far. DrWeetAls 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like advice and help in improving this article for possible good article status Shinerunner 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks,
Shinerunner 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to offer further thoughts on how the article could be improved- drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn 19:42, 26 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, Hfarmer 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added some detail to his recent seasons with Ajax, but I'd like to get some feedback that would help me to improve the article in general. Thanks in advance for any advice! JACO PLANE • 2007-08-27 18:45
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Hfarmer 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Various comments:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons (album)
I've listed this article for peer review because I and my co-author ( Ksy92003) hope to take this article to WP:GAC in the near future. Thanks, TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Hfarmer 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How can I improve this article to (or at least nearer to) Featured Article status? It's been a Good Article since March 02, 2007. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be greatly appreciated if members with scientific knowledge would look over the validity of the claims made on this page and also help to establish a more scientific understanding of this subject. Jmm6f488 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of disagreement over the correct terms and classifications for what pedophilia is. It would be greatly appreciated if members with a background in science could review this article and help bring it up to a more scientific standard. As it is now there is a lot of POV problems with the article. Thanks, Jmm6f488 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Two of my fellow editors suggested nominating this article for peer review (it currently is rated 'B' class), and I would mostly like help in properly formatting and endnoting the references section, have an impartial observer locate any parts in need of citation or expansion, and point out any deficiencies that would keep it from being upgraded to a better class. Thanks! JMax555 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]What a pleasure to read this article - I learned so much! I love all of the beautiful images, too. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Lead:
Content:
Small things:
Prose (if you go for FA, I would suggest a copy editor - someone who hasn't spent hours staring at the same sentences over and over again - it is very helpful to have a pair or two of fresh eyes):
MOS (if you go for FA, spend a day perusing the WP:MOS and making sure that the article meets every single standard - that way the FAC won't descend into long list of your MOS violations):
Again, this article was so enjoyable to read. If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Palestine was a WikiProject Palestine collaboration for some time and has been significantly improved by multiple editors. I am looking for feedback on how to further improve the article before submitting it for Featured Article status. Your comments would be very much appreciated. Tiamat 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a long article, but any feedback, even on parts, or technical aspects, anything at all, would be very greatly appreciated. It's a crash course in 600,000 years of human habitation and imperial history in a strategic geopolitical location. Check it out. :) Tiamat 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is WAY too long. I recommend creating a new article, "Pre-WWI history of Palestine." All the historical demographic and genetics information should go in that new article. (I wouldn't be surprised if other editors call for the genetics section to be yet its own article. After splitting off that material, the result would be a much more coherent article about modern Palestine, which should definitely include at least a paragraph about current conflicts.
It would be helpful to add a Geography section clarifying the various subregions and notable locations. VisitorTalk 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some non-Aggie eyes to look at it. I am eventually planning to nominate this for Featured Article consideration. Before that, however, I need to make sure that the article makes sense to people who haven't lived and breathed the Texas A&M traditions. Please let me know if specific sections don't provide enough detail or provide too much detail. I also welcome recommendations on what, if anything, should be cut, and on anything non-Aggies have heard of that should be included.
Thanks,
Karanacs 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! (I hope I pronounced that right, I'm not from Texas but I've visited there.) The article seems fine. The only item I'd heard of before was the bonfire deaths as reported in the news. It would help to make this a subsection, so that it shows up in the table of contents as that's what I looked for first. VisitorTalk 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it makes sense, and I'm certainly not an "aggie", never having been to Texas. Some things I find myself wondering: Howdy - how prevalent is this? Has it more or less replaced "hello" and "how's it going", or is it mostly just something people do on special occasions? Football - I have no idea what is meant by "step off the wood". Toresica 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll try to explain both Howdy and "off the wood" a little better. Karanacs 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been editing this article for some time, and would appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Skeezix1000 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
To be complete, the article should include a little more information about the town after the war: population, economy, whether it is frequented by historically-minded tourists, etc. VisitorTalk 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We're deeply focused on getting this article to FA class, but it is probably not ready for FAC yet. The article reached GA status about a month ago, and has improved a great deal since then. Although the whole article needs reviewing, the main thing I would like the reviewer to focus on is the "Musical Style" section, which is only a few days old. Thanks. Grim-Gym 04:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a few comments to the talk page for the article.
VisitorTalk
16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Done
References need to be consistently and correctly formatted. I started on it, but don't have time to finish. Refs with URLs all need retrieval requests. Should be: Last, First (date). Title. Work or Publisher, pages. Retrieved on date. - URL goes with title, of course. Directly after punctuation, no space before, no punctuation after. I'll review more later.
LARA
♥LOVE
06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Done
After reading up on Frank Barson I decided to look him up on wikipedia and found this was the article. I then decided to expanded it and put it up for a GA realising that i had a lot more to do to get it to that standard so i was wondering what needs doing? Baring in mind there isn't much info about him as his playing career finished in 1939 but started in 1911! Thank you ( Everlast1910( Talk) 09:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
Always good to read a well-developed article about a player from the game's early days, even if he spend six years playing for the dark side.
Done:he finished playing for Villa in 1923 so added the
![]() | This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1929 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details. |
![]() |
tag
Done
Done
Done
Done
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Get around to everything else in a bit Everlast 1910 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Everlast 1910 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
He is Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2006. I would like to work to upgrade this article at least to a GA status. Please help me with your suggestions. Arman Aziz 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy to give further advice, contact me on my talk page. J Milburn 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how we can improve it and potentially get it up to featured article standards. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated
Thanks,
Brendan44 12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you've done a lot of work so far, but I think you still have a lot to do before going for FA. The most glaring problem with the article is its lack of citations. Every single quotation must be cited, and most facts should also be cited from a reputable source. Furthermore, the prose needs work. Some of it does not send formal enough, and in other cases it is choppy or does not flow well. I haven't gone too far into the details, but here are some examples of the problems I saw.
Good luck! Karanacs 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Some footnotes are a little messy-
Now, some non-reference issues-
Happy to analyse further, drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed an FAC nom ( see link), largely on the grounds that it gave undue weight to a minority opinion ( WP:UNDUE). The issue here is that, while this may be a minority opinion, it has nonetheless played an important role in the life of the books and has had a massive cultural impact, just as, to use a more extreme example, al-Qaeda and the IRA are infinitesimal minorities of their respective religions, but their opinions and actions have had a large impact on outside culture.1 I am interested in finding ways that this could be accurately presented without appearing to offend people of religious faith, who seem the most askance at this article.
Thanks,
Serendipod ous 08:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(btw, note to the confused: in response to complaints, this article has gone through six separate title changes)
1To give some quantifiable evidence for this impact, harry-potter alone produces 134 million separate Google hits, whereas harry-potter and religion OR christian OR christianity produces 23 million Google hits, or 17 percent of the total. By contrast, performing the same pair of searches for Narnia and Lord of the Rings, both well-known Christian allegories, produces 21 and 14 percent respectively, and Star Wars produces only 2 percent.
The current version seems fine to me. Good show! VisitorTalk 16:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Some views on how this article can be improved would be immensely helpful as it is intended to take it up to GA level. Many thanks! Seaserpent85 Talk 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
On the whole, quite good. Just a few things-
This article was originally forked off from the main Gillingham F.C. article due to its length, but I see no reason why it couldn't also reach FA status, so I've been working hard on it over the last week or so, and would now appreciate feedback on anything I still need to work on.
Many thanks!!!!
ChrisTheDude 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A very good overall standard, covering all eras and with no obvious POV issues. These comments cover minor issues, of style rather than content.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been steadily improving this article about Ban Ki-moon, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations. As one of the most important diplomats in the world, I would like to get this up to Featured Article status. I would like guidance on where the article needs improvement (and bear in mind, his early and personal life and career before becoming secretary general are not 1/50th as well documented as, say, a U.S. president) and particularly how best to deal with the section on his current term as Secretary-General. Would small subsections of the biggest issues during his term, much like recent Featured Article Ronald Reagan be the best way to approach?
Thanks, -- JayHenry 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've spent a great deal of time writing articles on the various carom billiards disciplines (a labor of love). This article is essentially my summary of that prior foundation. Already a GA and selected for
Wikipedia:Version 0.7, I would like some suggestions for further improvement and expansion. Any clarifications, prose issues, etc. are welcome. Please don't provide an automated peer review. Note that I am aware of the recently added, fragmented text at the end of the three cushion billiards section.--
Fuhghettaboutit
22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
<automated peer review removed>
Review by Midnightdreary Great job on this article, plenty of good sources (though, really, you can never have enough, right?). Here are some suggestions.
Well, I hope I was helpful. Best of luck with this article and other work here on Wikipedia! -- Midnightdreary 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This list was an absolute mess when I found it, so I restructured it based on other television episode lists. I guess I wanted some opinions on what I can do to bring this up to Featured List status - my thoughts were that individual episode summaries would make this page absolutely unbearable, but that individual season summaries might be appropriate. I also wasn't sure how to handle the writer/director red links. I know that individual episodes should not be linked if they have no page, but I wasn't sure about the people involved. I'm willing to do what it takes to improve this list (as I hope I've shown by my work on it so far) so please let me know. Thanks and Cheers, CP 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to AnonEMouse, I got some great tips on getting this article up to B class and getting a free picture. Now I'd like to get it up to Good Article status and I wanted to know what I could/should do to do that. Any help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I think it's a bit too short, that's my biggest GA concern. I'm willing to do whatever work is necessary. I'd also like to review one or two of the other requests here. Do I need to be a member of WPBIO to do that? Cheers, CP 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to totally revamp the article over the last couple of months, and would like an outsider to suggest ways to improve the article and make it GA standard. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Sam Orchard 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a mention of the importance of videos to their career in the MTV era. Other than that, it seems to me to be a fine article. VisitorTalk 06:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to achieve a Featured article status, it is a quite famous, and musically important band, and now disbanded. I spent an enormous time improving it, it was basically totally unreferenced and without enough information and no images. But I know it is no reason for a FA that I worked on it for a long time:) So I requested peer review to have other people check the article against the criterias, because I can't see more problems, but I'm sure there are many.
Thanks,
Gocsa 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, the article is good, and I really need to get back to RL. But these are just some things I picked up on.-- Esprit15d 20:57, 27 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, Hfarmer 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The article looks very good so far, but it does require a thorough copyedit. In particular, the lead section needs to be rearranged for grammar and clarity. I'll put it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music's prose review section in hopes that someone can take a look at it. Also, I'm not really sure the "Solo projects" section is all that necessary; with everything these bandmembers have done such information is best reserved for the individual member pages. WesleyDodds 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on Forbidden City for a while, with the aim of getting it to featured article status. I feel that it is meeting or close to meeting the criteria, so I would appreciate any comments or suggestions in that regard. Some things which I would like a "fresh eye" to comment on include style and quality of prose, formatting of references, and image quantity/placement. Thanks in advance, -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 04:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a good well constructed article, few pointers
There a few comments, not a good review though. SpecialWindler talk 06:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lazy review by mcginnly 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 7 metres, use 7 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 metres.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
mcginnly has made a lot of good points, so I won't repeat them. My only real bug is that a lot of citations come from the same source - "Yu". Would it be possible to have some of them replaced to vary the sources used?
DoneAlso, I don't see the original references for "Yu" and "Yang" - you need to have full citations for the first time they're used.
John Smith's
13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This article looks very good. One minor comment is that there are a lot of paragraphs with only a few sentences in them. Very often there are only two or three sentences per paragraph. I would either merge or expand them so that the text flows more and isn't as broken by spaces. Secondly, it would be advantageous to have a labeled plan, diagram, or axonometric drawing that shows the locations of the individual buildings such as the gates and halls that are discussed. Furthermore, you can add a few more references, such as [5] if you have access, and you can also work from some surveys such as [6]. It is smart that you are using plenty of Chinese sources but the article may benefit from a few more in English. Where you are at now looks very close to featured article status. Well done so far and good luck. D. Recorder 01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was nominated for Featured status, before going through an FAR and demoting this article from Featured status. Any suggestions to get this back up to Featured status should be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to note that the article also needs to be reviewed to see if it reaches FA-Class. Thank you. Mr. Mario 192 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like this article to be reviewed for the following:
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 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I found the current version of the article difficult to follow. There is a link to "jihad," but not to "lesser jihad." The introduction says that the laws govern diplomacy, but the only diplomacy-related comments in the article were duplicate comments about the requirement to accept peace treaties. There was nothing in the article about how Islamic soldiers are dealt with when accused of military offenses; is there an Islamic equivalent to the Western court-martial? Where differences of interpretation were noted, it was not made clear if this is because the Quran does not specifically address those issues, leaving room for interpretation based on different traditions, or whether there are specific texts but different traditions insist on differing applications of those verses. The line "historically, lack of a central religious authority..." could well be expanded into its own paragraph, with well cited examples through history. The article does seem grammatically correct, but it would help to break the longer sentences into short, one-thought sentences where practical. It would be useful to cite research about how different philosophies of military jurisprudence have contributed to the outcomes of various battles and wars between the Islamic world and opponents from other cultural and religious traditions. VisitorTalk 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I done some major work on this article and would like advice and comments. Looking to resubmit this artilce for Good Article Review. Thanks Shinerunner 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
LuciferMorgan 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'm starting to verify statements through alternate sources. Shinerunner 21:39, 7 August 2007 (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 100 miles, use 100 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 miles.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:02, 16 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 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is on the short side and is lacking in citations. The lead does not serve as a concise overview of the article. The Genre overview section relies too much on a bulleted list—can that be worked into prose? The article does no say where the term "Low fantasy" originated. Who are the most notable authors who write in this genre? Have there been low fantasy films or TV series? Instances where specific books are listed as "low fantasy" should be cited (such as a review where it is clasified as "low fantasy"). Hope this was some help. — RJH ( talk) 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently rewrote this and looking for comments before submitting as a featured item. Thanks! GCW50 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting, but it doesn't seem quite there yet. Some comments:
Hope this helps a little. — RJH ( talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just written up this article after a fellow WP:HMM participant recommended it to me, and now I would like to know what I can do to push it that little bit further up to Good Article standard. It's only short, but they are a side project that has released one album, so it is hard to write much. Not sure which areas may need work, and I am open to all suggestions.
Thanks. J Milburn 12:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Rockdetector: What can one expect in future material from CHROME DIVISION?
Shagrath - "It's a band like AC/DC – when you buy an AC/DC album you know what you get. Musically it'll be the same thing, but we'll try to add different ingredients to the music. Maybe we'll also change the lyrical content."
Rockdetector: During rehearsals in the band's early days, did you perform cover songs?
Shagrath: "We tried out a few Rock N' Roll jams fused with some TWISTED SISTER. I'm sure when we do live shows we'll perform some more cover songs."
Rockdetector - Are there any particular songs, or bands?
Shagrath - "Some MÖTLEY CRÜE songs from their first album maybe? We'll see."
The Motorhead comparison was particularly picked upon in the Rockdetector interview, as can be seen here;
Rockdetector: It sounded a lot like MOTÖRHEAD to me
Shagrath: "Yeah MOTÖRHEAD also. We don't take direct inspiration from those bands though; you're not gonna see us sit down and think 'now let's make a MOTÖRHEAD song."
There's probably interviews with a lot of other information also. LuciferMorgan 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work so far, a few comments:
I'll add some more comments soon. Keep it up! CloudNine 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
After a previous peer review, I've now got a little bit of time on my hands, and am keen to prod this slowly towards featured article status. I'm going to fix the timeline soon (when I work out what's changed to break it!) and would welcome any other comments about the content and flow, in light of comments on the talk page.
Many thanks,
Verisimilus T 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice work on an interesting topic. I have a few comments that I hope are of some use:
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is currently a GA. I'm looking for any comments anyone may have, with the long-term aim of getting this to FA status. SP-KP 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to know what kind of things does this page need to be nominated for a feature article. Thanks! Limetolime 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please search for errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar.
I hope to make the article interesting and informative for lay readers, while providing a useful starting-point for scholarly research. I will be grateful for suggestions relative to either of those objectives. Wugo 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Utcursch, especially for the better reference. I was not aware of the curly-bracket commands, {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite book}}, and {{ cite web}}. I shall look them up and, thenceforth, use them. Wugo 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please add all the comments, requests, additions, adjustments that you would like to recommend, especially if you are an expert or an interested person. :) Wik idea 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that this list is compiled mainly by one user and therefore is not a consensus. Further, as I mentioned on the talk page, there's a long list of complaints, however little initiative from what I can see to actually address them. Also in regards to the complaints; while some of the information may be common knowledge, a bulk of the arguments may not be and there's no sources provided to backup the claims. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm listing this article as I'd particularly like some feedback from someone unfamiliar with the topic. (Comments from people familiar are welcome as well of course!) Ways of improving the structure and/or heading would be of particular help. Frankly I've been looking at this article for way too long and need a fresh perspective. Caveat lector 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking for the review. The subject seems noteworthy and you have a good start at the article. However, I believe several changes are in order.
Throughout the article, it would help to break long, complex sentences into short sentences which each address only one idea.
The initial sentence needs to be rewritten, as the current language implies that the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
The lead says "there has never been a formal agreement," but the 1922 section says "an agreement to this effect was reached between the two sides." That's confusing. In 1952, was there "an agreement" or only a unilateral change to the UK's "relevant immigration law?"
I'm confused as to why Ireland would have been "required to follow changes in British immigration policy" in the absence of a formal agreement.
Is the section about EEA nationals actually relevant in an article about the CTA?
I believe the Schengen section should be retitled, "Effect of potential Schengen integration" or something like that. I was halfway through the section before I realized it was about a hypothetical change.
Is there research indicating public opinion about the CTA, EEA and Schengen integration?
In practical terms, what does the CTA's existence mean to citizens of the area and to international visitors from outside the EEA?
VisitorTalk 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Would be grateful for any comments or input on style, scope and content of the article. -- Grimne 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting this article be rated as "Start" as opposed to "Stub". It seems substantially similar, for instance, to the A. J. Croce page, which is cited as a canonical example of "Start" class bio pages. That's all. Jkraybill 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A while back I asked Jonyungk about getting this article to featured status. He had already been working on it for some time and continued to work on it tirelessly until it became what it is now. I never knew until recently that it is good to peer review an article before nominating it to featured status, and so here it is at your disposal. Is there anything left that needs done for it to be submitted for FAC? — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Tchaikovsky being gay [sic] needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction." Can you expound on this a bit? It is sourced and widely known that he had homosexual feelings (after all the talk page shows it falls under WikiProject LGBT Studies). — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:26, 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.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In the 10,000 foot view, I notice that the article as it stands is mainly a biography; it ends with a very short section on works and style. Detailed sections are available as links. Were these split off because there were complaints the article was too long? My opinion (feel free to disagree) is that it's OK to have long articles on subjects like this one, and that any article on a composer should be 40-60% biography and 40-60% works/style/influence. Sometimes that material can be integrated into the biography, but it's tough to do--better IMO to have a separate section as you do. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
" While not part of the nationalistic music group " The Russian Five", Tchaikovsky wrote music now known and loved for its distinctly Russian character, rich harmonies and stirring melodies. His works, however, are much more western than those of his Russian contemporaries as he effectively uses international elements in addition to national folk melodies."
- Saying T's music is "loved" is a POV statement. It would be more objective to note things such as how often his works are still performed today at classical concerts, or used as incidental music in cinema, etc. - The sentence handwaves to another article for any explanation of what might be the characteristics of "Russian-sounding music" - what are "rich" harmonies? - "stirring" melodies is not an objective phrase -- feline1 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this is still a future project but it is referenced quite well and there are a few other good features. I am a little worried that some sections are too short and possible OR. What should be required for this to become GA standard? Does it have to wait until the company comes into service? Simply south 11:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
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'm considering submitting this as a FAC, but there's a lot of history missing, despite the length of the section already (Once filled out, it will definitely be in need of some WP:SS-ing which I unfortunately don't have time for right now.). Is that likely to cause an automatic fail, or is there enough to allow it to receive decent consideration? I'm also concerned about redundancy, as some of the information deserved mention in a couple different sections, and while a few details are different in each section, others are not. Is it ok, or too much? How should I fix it? What can be removed from where, without leaving gaping holes? Also, have I gone overboard with the inline citations? If I have, how should I fix that without simply removing sources? Is there anything else that seems to be missing, or errors that I've overlooked? I'm busy now so may not be able to make suggested changes immediately, but if I can get a make-it-FA-quality to-do list to work on when I get the chance, that'd be much appreciated. - Bbik ★ 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lazy review by mcginnly 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, Mcginnly | Natter 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I just want to know what I can add to this article and how can I can improve the quality. All comments will be appreciated. Thanks in Advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyangel252 ( talk • contribs)
Here are some comments and y:
That should be enough to get you going, especially the references. SpecialWindler talk 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is difficult to follow for someone who does not already know about the region. Material about geography should be removed from the history section. The article on Alsace_Lorraine might be good inspiration for how to reorganize your article. VisitorTalk 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions on improving its readability, if it needs improvement, would also be appreciated. Or if you feel that this article needs to be improved in any other way. Flyer22 00:25, 5 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 15:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's getting late for me, so this is where I will stop for now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Continued review
Stopping here for a bit. Also, here is my version of a trimmed plot section. All major plot events are still there, I just trimmed out the unnecessary details. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to prepare the article for a GA nomination. I'm not a native English speaker so any comments on the language will be particularly helpful. — Kpalion (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I screwed that up. Forget what I said above. Sometimes I don't know where my head is. And "hoist" is correct, obviously. Sorry, must have been tired. I will pull myself together and give the remainder of the article my very best edit job, which is normally at least adequate. — Milkbreath 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As penance for being such a bonehead, I spent the morning playing with this article in my sandbox trying to arrange the pictures. I think I've got it looking pretty good. I'd like to edit it in over the present page, but I don't want to give anybody a heart attack. Would that be OK? -- Milkbreath 15:41, 6 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 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I have done a lot of work on this article, taken photos, written sections. I have written most of it and would like to see how it is faring towards Featured Article. I know its probably nowhere near close...-- TheJosh 11:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, this article needs a lot of work before it even meets Good Article criteria. The lead needs to meet WP:LEAD criteria; it needs to summarize the article, Right now, it is far too short. The history section needs to be expanded, but mostly needs references. The Geography section needs far more information, i.e. coordinates, town size, neighbouring municipalities, geographical characteristics, etc. All sections of the article need to be improved, both with referencing and length. More images would greatly add to the article. The current infobox image would probably be more appropriate in the "Transportation" section, and a view of a prominent building or cityscape should be obtained if possible. (Images are not a requirement for promotion, but they certainly add to articles). The infrastructure section needs a lot of work as well, particularly with prose. References should be properly formatted using the cite web format. Overall, while this article is certainly not ready for FA-class, it is off to a great start. I would assess this as a Start-class article on its way to a B. To see what is expected of a mid-size city FA-class article, see Grand Forks, North Dakota. Raime 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is clear that the article has had a lot of work done. There are some huge improvements. I'd say this now almost meets B-Class requirements (very close), but not quite. It is also not yet ready for GAC or FAC nomination. TheJosh, I'd say you would want to work towards Good Article status before arriving at FAC, as it seems an appropriate step. However, it still needs some work:
Overall, you have made great improvements. Please feel free to leave me further questions or comments. I will be glad to assist in any article cleanup. Raime 02:15, 19 August 2007 (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 2mm, use 2 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 mm.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TheJosh 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone is welcomed to improve the article. Comments appreciated.
Thank you,
Samantha Lim
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 10:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have so far been the only major contributer to this article about an ancient and destroyed Scottish castle.
I am looking for any comments and suggestions as I have contributed as much as I can find (I have no library access) and think now is the time to tidy up the article. I have been looking at this article from some time so it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it.
I will not have access to the internet until Monday but will reply to any suggestions after then weekend. thanks in advance, Bobbacon 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope this is helpful (it's meant to be!). Good luck with the article. Cheers. 4u1e 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for any comments available to improve this article. However it would probably help the most with concentrations on headings and writing style, plus suggestions for improvements to citations. The359 06:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I need to know whether or not the picure is ok, and what other information people think would improve the article. Toepoke 13:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while now. The article achieved GA status on July 31, 2007, but has since been greatly expanded and given more references, images, and information. I am hoping to get it to FA-Status. Any comments and suggestions would be great, and I will do my best to respond to each one immediately. Thanks, Raime 05:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Malinaccier's Review
Really, there aren't too many problems with the article. Just keep editing! •Malinaccier• T/ C 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Some comments:
I am looking to get the Michael Barrett (baseball) article to GA status. I previously attempted, a few months ago, and failed miserably. I have since attended to the reviewers comments, and hope to get some feedback and suggestions. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wouldn't the Career statistics be easier to follow if they were shown by season. Buc 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi I just followed the to-do list given to me by a fellow Pinoy Wikipedian. We managed to fix all but one citation (we didn't go through the DENR people though) and I think the spelling is ok.
These is what the article needs:
Comments: Is it GA worthy?
Contributions: Images, we only managed to get two free images
-- Lenticel ( talk) 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider adding more
links to the article; per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and
Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
[?]
I think all of these were addressed -- Lenticel ( talk) 10:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
*Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0 centimeters, use 0 centimeters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0 centimeters.
[?]
Fixed by Shrumster-- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
[?] Specifically, an example is 13.5 cm.
did not find any abbreviated units -- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*Per
Wikipedia:Context and
Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link
January 15,
2006.
[?]
adressed -- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*There are a few occurrences of
weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either
American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), gray (A) (British: grey).
Made all words set to American spelling -- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This GA article has been substantially expanded taking into account comments made on the project's A-class assessment page. I would like to receive wider input to push it on its way to becoming an FAC. Thanks. → AA ( talk) — 16:49, 30 August 2007 (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 100 feet, use 100 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 feet.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, → AA ( talk) — 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent quite a bit of time working towards GA for this, and think that it could reach FA with a little bit of help. Any advice, especially specific advice, is very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Neranei (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
I've listed this article for peer review because…
the coverage of U.S. nuclear power stations on Wikipedia is woefully inadequate and this article, which was just expanded, is really the first attempt on Wikipedia to cover nuclear power stations in the Unites States in any kind of encyclopedic and detailed manner. My main concern is about any missing data, any technical information or data that an expert would be appalled at seeing missing. The article was written by a non-expert with some background in chemistry and nuclear power through the military and through university. Any opinions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
IvoShandor 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the asking for expansion finds only me listening, me new wikipedian. I'll patch below the proposal I put in the talk page.
Hi! As I wrote earlier I am expanding " St Mark's Basilica". My purpose is to save as more as possible of the present chapters, but most of them will be slightly changed to allow additions. I would like to change the section "Early history" to "History", adding a few details but especially moving there historical chapters inserted later in the article. I think this is necessary in order to unify the following sections ("The present building" and "Decoration") in an "Architecture" section divided in "Exterior" and "Interior", as in the article on it.Wikipedia [1]. Since this is my first contribution at all for wikipedia, please help me. Stefano Remo 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks,
Stefano Remo 20:48, 9 September 2007 (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 4 inch, use 4 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 inch.
[?]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Requesting peer review on this article. It's an older cartoon series on Cartoon Network, no longer in production, yet still on the air. The article itself should be fairly stable, but would like to get the highest quality possible, shooting for GA. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you. I know that's a fairly wide open request...
Yngvarr 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer wide open requests, so I can write about what I like. Here are a few things I would do to improve the article-
I am happy to review further, drop me a line on my talk page if you would like me to. J Milburn 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been proposed for review at WP:SPR and also transcluded into WP:PR so the debate will be in one place. However, it awaits a comment from the nominator on what kind of review is required. -- Bduke 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking of nominating the article for good article; I want to know if it meets the standards both in content and in style for a scientific article. I would appreciate any comments on it. I have spent so many ours with the article that I think a third party review will be very interesting. I know its not very specific; thanks anyway.-- Garrondo 08:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article (about one of the world's most important seas) was recently "Collaboration of the month" over at WP:ACID and thus has seen much improvement. A couple of times now people have requested either a peer review or a GA nomination, and I think a review would be extremely useful for the editors to further spruce up the article.
Thanks,
Totnesmartin 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A few random comments:
Of the major oceans, the North Atlantic is the saltiest; its salinity averages about 37.9 o/oo....- in parts per thousand, for which the symbol o/oo is used. [1]
In the Mediterranean, the seawater has a salinity of approximately forty (parts per thousand), while the Atlantic Ocean, on the other side of the Strait of Gibraltar, has a salinity of thirty five (ppt). [2]
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I believe that it is currently on the right track and has a lot of things going for it. Thanks,
Spikeleefan 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on this article off-and-on for over a year now, and think it's about time for some peer review. It failed WP:FAC a while back and has improved a lot from the comments made during the process. Suggestions and edits--especially with regard to accessibility to lay audiences, completeness of the article, context, etc.--would be much appreciated. -- David Iberri ( talk) 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for about 2 months now, have turned it from a stub to atleast a B grade article and have added about 30+ sources (it now has exactly 40 sources, including interviews). I just want some feedback and maybe to get this to a GA/FA status.
Thanks,
-- Shatterzer0 02:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments;
Generally a great article- obviously, my comments are very minor things. I'll take another look when you have worked on mine and LuciferMorgan's suggestions. J Milburn 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sworn to a Great Divide In early March, Soilwork began laying down the tracks for their seventh album, Sworn to a Great Divide. The last sentence of the section is the exact same as the firs sentence in this paragraph. I suggest remove the part in the previous paragraph.
I'll add more later. M3tal H3ad 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well there's not much advice left for me to give since the above editors have already presented a lot of the same concerns I have, but here's a bit:
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can become a featured article really soon. I just want to know what parts of it should be cleaned up and I would greatly appreciate any subsequent copyediting.
Thanks,
Noahdabomb3 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a candidate for including in the Wikipedia for Schools, yet is still a start-class article with mediocre formatting, no citations, and little coverage of such a broad and important topic. Animated cartoon, and many of the history of animation articles also need to be peer-reviewed, although I would like to start with this one first. -- FuriousFreddy 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA Thanks, Jac16888 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hoping to bring it to FA standard. DrKiernan 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
All in all, a well-written, informative, and enjoyable article to read. Nice work. Cla68 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review for this article because i have recently spent a few days completely re-writing the article and I am now thinking about submitting it as a good article candidate. Thanks, Childzy ¤ Talk 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Dont suppose a real person would have 5 minutes to browse through the article? The automated doesnt really help much. Thanks -- Childzy ¤ Talk 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
*Moving up north to Burnley - A touch informal, and Burnley is almost due west of Bradford anyway. --
Childzy ¤
Talk
09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This binary star system was the first to have it's distance from the Earth estimated. There is speculation about a companion planet, but this is yet to be confirmed. The article seems fairly complete, so I am wondering what else needs to be done. Any ideas?
Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have written it, and aside from adding a picture, am not sure how to improve it.
Thanks,
Scottandrewhutchins 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article deals with an important (and controversial) event in the Cold War and Latin American history, and needs to be brought up to good standards. I would like feedback on possible room for expansion (questions which are unclear to a third-party audience), dealing with RS (it relies heavily on one author, for example) and potential stylistic issues. Basically: if you're not Brazilian, and you're reading this article, what would you be interested in reading about in this moment in history and how do you think the article can better help you understand it?
Thanks,
Dali-Llama 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on it quite a bit recently. I've shortened the lists, added pictures, etc. I really need more suggestions though. I'm trying to get this article up to GA status. Connör ( talk) 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has benefitted from some recent work, and is related to a timely topic -- biofuels. Jatropha is a genus of (mostly) weeds with oily seeds that may prove to be a good feedstock for biodiesel. Work is going on right now to develop processes and determine economic feasibility. -- 72.94.157.91 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I'd like someone to check that It's ok on NPOV, especially in relation to references to (a) websites critical of adverts the subject has appeared in and (b) companies using articles by the subject as product endorsements.
I know that the article is in desperate need of some flesh, and also that it's link heavy.
Thanks,
DMcMPO11AAUK 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the request to the archive (i.e. withdrawn the request) as feedback would be a more appropriate mechanism than peer review at this point. Hopefully this will in a small way reduce the peer review backlog too. DMcMPO11AAUK 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have put in a lot of effort recently into improving this article's reliability, by introducing sources to unsourced claims, and other minor detail fixes that make a huge difference. I would like some feedback about how the article is written, what can be changed and what can be added to the article to promote it to FA. More references is probably an issue, but I'd like to hear more comments about the prose of the article, other wording issues, etc. Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it was requested by User:Reinoutr during a FAC. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I just added an article about anti-stuttering devices. I would appreciate anyone checking it over. The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something. For example, the article should have a picture of an anti-stuttering device, but the only pictures I have are of my company's devices. Also the list of companies in the final section should have links to the companies' websites, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia policy forbids or just discourages links to commercial websites.-- TDKehoe 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve this article as much as possible to bring it to GA (or even FA) standards. Most of it has been a solo work. I've added a notes and references sections (which was missing before), actual citations from the creators, references to its reception in Japan, ISBN numbers and publishing dates of the original Jump Comics volumes (which could branch off to a separate page, since there are so many different reprints of the series). I've also removed the "References in other works" section (as well as a previous Trivia section), which I believed didn't add anything to the article. I'm still not completely sastified enough though and I want some suggestions. For example, should I use a cover from the Jump Comics edition (which is the one at the moment), an English cover or the eBook edition that I was previous using? I also feel the lead section might be too long as well. Jonny2x4 07:18, 23 July 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, DrKiernan 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For about a year now, I have been working on a series of articles about Mary Wollstonecraft so that I can submit a featured topic about her. All of the other articles on her works are already FA or on their way to FAC - this is the last one that needs to be prepped. I would therefore appreciate constructive criticism regarding this article's organization, prose, and accessibility. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Awadewit,
I've had only a little time to brood over A Vindication of the Rights of Men, so these will be just preliminary pensives. I really liked the article the first time I read it, but now I'm beginning to fear that this will be a tricky article. I hope that won't be true but in any case I'll try to help out as (if) I can.
The present article describes Wollstonecraft's arguments very well; I wouldn't change those parts, but I think they would benefit from being organized more strongly and set off with other material. In particular, I feel that the chronology of the French Revolution, other responses to Burke, and Burke's arguments should be described more fully. You often introduce Burke's arguments by juxtaposing them with Wollstonecraft's; I wouldn't change that, but I would include a section dedicated to outlining Burke's arguments all in one place — twice told is thrice learned, no? The other responses to Burke and various people's responses as the French Revolution evolved might make a good final section, returning to the opening historical perspective and closing the circle. The present article is relatively short (~34 kb), so it has some room to grow.
Here's a humbly offered suggestion that might clarify what I was thinking of. You might structure the "Historical context" section with a converging funnel shape au Billy Budd, beginning by sketching the big picture of England and France in the 1780s, with their traditions and power structures, then confining attention to the French Revolution and its chronology (say, up to Napoleon's 18 Brumaire), then confining still further to Burke, e.g., "Burke wrote his pamphlet,..., near the beginning of the revolution (1790), as a letter to a young man X who had asked his opinion of the French Revolution...", then outline the letter's major arguments and tenor. My basic concern is that the present article doesn't really describe what Wollstonecraft was responding to; it seems like fighting with shadows. Admittedly, I haven't finished reading Burke's letter. I just started reading it yesterday and couldn't finish it before falling asleep; I was tired!
There's one other point that I need to mention as a sincere reviewer, although I can't really suggest anything specific to change. For me, the present article has an air of being perhaps too sympathetic to Wollstonecraft. I didn't notice it at first, perhaps because it matches my own thinking, but I seem to sense it now and worry that others will think likewise. It might be just me, though, since I was conscious of being overly sympathetic to Dorothy Wrinch in the Cyclol article, which feels somehow parallel.
Trying my best to give you a thoughtful review, Willow 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice article on a ground breaking Hollywood actress with many awards and more controversies. A lot of people has put a lot of effort into it. It has gone through tremendous surges of changes, of which the recent versions of 28 July 2007, 3 March 2007 and 14 December 2006 may be worth taking a look at. A lot many suggestions I could make on the current version are there in these previous versions. This pretty important article shows all the possibilities of becoming a "good" or even a "featured" article. Please, take a look. Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing that strikes me here is the whole tone of the article, as if it was written by a mass of fans. It really needs someone to edit the entire article, top to bottom - there are things out of place or over-emphasised, and a fair bit of peacock terms. In all, not an encyclopedic article, even though the information is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin ( talk • contribs) 2:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this sounds like a list of complaints (we Brits love a good moan), but acting on them will shape up the article immensely. If you want more help, then I heartily recommend WP:ACID.
Hope this all helps! Totnesmartin 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Citation! Can someone identify the places where an inline citation is a dire necessity and tag those lines with a {{ fact}} tag? Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I made some sample edits to get you started; there are a large number of MOS issues, including WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE. Solo years should not be linked, full dates should, and emdashes are not spaced on Wiki. The citations are not fully formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
She is a fascinating subject for an encyclopedia article. However, since it is an encyclopedia article, I feel that the subject throughout the article should be "Mansfield" instead of "Jayne." In some sentences, for instance, it will say, "Jayne was known for her great acting abilities." That sounds too informal to me. Another issue: Do you really believe that she had an IQ of 163 or whatever? Do you know how rare that would be? I doubt it, and if I were writing the article, I would treat that with skepticism.
One of the things that I hope will be added is basically a modern analysis of Jayne Mansfield. For instace, what is her legacy today? Can you find any modern reviews of her movies, for instance? I am curious to see how people view her in the 21st century. How do feminists feel about her? Which entertainers have been insprired by her through the years? I would bet that Anna Nicole Smith tried to look like her, for instance. Good luck on your journey to Featured Article status. 138.67.44.69 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
After doing a complete rewrite of this article a month ago, it has received good article status and I intend to list it as a nominee for FA status here in the near future. I would appreciate any constructive input anyone has to make the process run as smoothly as possible.
Thanks,
Trusilver 16:25, 1 September 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, DTGardner 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There has been quite a lot of work done to Saint Patrick since the last peer review, and the article has been fairly stable for a while, so this seems like a good time to ask for a review. What needs added, removed, rewritten, referenced,...? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to FA standard, but I am unsure if the content and the standard of content meets such criteria. So I'd like to know what might keep this article from FA status or any other general suggestions for improvmenet. Thanks! - J Logan t: 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for feedback. I know how frustrating waiting can be for these! This article is in quite good shape, and I'm sure this can get to FA, but I think some work is needed. It looks like you were the primary author of European Parliament, an excellent article, you can largely use that article as your guide.
I've watchlisted this review and the article, and I'm happy to help with further improvements or to clarify my points above. -- JayHenry 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Listed because the above was a rapidly changing event that was in the media spotlight. Now with the sport moving on, the furore has calmed down, the article is edit-stable and has multiple references. Looking for suggestions as to how to get it up to GA for now. Many thanks Dick G 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I remember this. At an AfD. Hehe, that was amusing. Anyhoo, back to the review...
My first thought was that, as per WP:LEAD#Length, the opening is too short and doesn't summarize the article. I don't necessarily agree with that guideline in every instance, but in this case it highlights the article's biggest flaw (point two, below):
Done Slightly re-worked as wanted to farm off some of the content elsewhere
Dick G
Not done Only because I think it is important that the article emphasises the events during the Tour. It seems there is much less gravitas on the post-Tour developments - most of the talking/action occurred when Rasmussen exited . Thoughts?
Dick G
Done lifted the lead from OP article which seemed to work
Dick G
Done where most of the effort has gone. Am not multi-lingual (shame) so have had to crib second-hand references from British media but it seems to work
Dick G
Done as regards the latter suggestion. To merge them into overview seems to blur the chronology and would burden the Overview section which is better off as an indicative summary of how the events unfolded. Adding detail of Vinokourov's denials, Astana's voluntary suspension or Contador's protestations seems to clutter that ideal.
Dick G
Done wish I could take the credit but not my work unfortunately. With expanded sections the article probably needs more images. Any ideas/assistance?
Dick G
Other, minor issues:
Done think I've picked them all up now
Dick G
Done in part. I am not keen on spelling out placings as I think it is ugly and unnecessary though happy to defer to any MOS sticklers.
Dick G
Hope all this helps, regards, -- DeLarge 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: reading over my comments this morning, I'm not 100% that I did a decent job of communicated my suggestions. I therefore created a sandbox at
User:DeLarge/2007 Doping to illustrate what I meant; hopefully that'll help.
Done in part. Comments above refer to any departures from the suggested order
Dick G
Also, after re-reading the article, one small issue I have is that because riders aren't excluded immediately (i.e. they're tested in stage 11, but not excluded until five stages later), it's not immediately obvious that the article's in chronological order. For example, I'd suggest changing "Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni tested positive for testosterone after stage 11, in which he finished 102nd. After finishing stage 16, he was immediately pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis." to "Immediately after he finished stage 16, Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni was pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis. He had tested positive for testosterone in a sample taken after stage 11, where he finished 102nd." That might better emphasize the "chronologic" (sic) of the page.
Done Think I've addressed this now as article is more chronological. Happy to be shown any errors or fuzzy chronologic
Dick G
Further regards, -- DeLarge 10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Current event, long-term goal is for the article to pass FAC, would appreciate some relevant suggestions, and some bit of copy-editing.
Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Hildanknight
Great work, Mailer Diablo! The article has considerable GA potential - do nominate it for the GA drive. Once the event and the article stabilises, the article will hopefully be ready for a GA nomination; should the nomination succeed, consider aiming for FA.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because its a GA article that I want to upgrade into a Featured Article, which would be my first. I just need some advice for it.
Thanks,
Mit ch32 contribs 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know how it could be improved. I have only recently started editing this article and would like it to eventually become a good article. I think there are too many small sections such as Notable Managers and would like the layout to be more in line with the highere quality team articles
Thanks,
Eddie6705 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty simple to stat with. Every dubious fact needs citation. Buc 16:53, 7 September 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, DTGardner 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Some pointers:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been judged an "A" rated article accorinding to WikiProject MiddleEarth, and to improve it further it needs to be reviewed by independant Wikipedians.
Thanks,
Davémon 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, GA, hoping for FA in the future. Based on FAs, Cape Feare, Homer's Phobia, Homer's Enemy and You Only Move Twice. Any comments at all are welcomed. Thanks, Gran 2 19:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for comments on all parts of the article. I know that the contemporary section is underdeveloped. Any ideas on that section - and other sections?
Thanks, Merbabu 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed two GA nominations already. Since the last it has been improved greatly and we would like any feedback on how we can push this important article to GA or even FA status. Thanks. ornis ( t) 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is much better than the last time I read it. Kudos to the editors. My points are mostly regarding prose and organization - they are minor. I hope to see this article promoted through GAC and FAC in the next few months.
Content:
Paragraph structure is a weakness of the article.
There are far too many "this" and "these" statements - they are hard to find the referents far and often confuse the prose. Try to reduce the use of "this".
Layout:
The article could use a careful copy editor:
The box at the end reads As Darwin's work spread and became better known, references to it began appearing in the popular culture of the day. Some of the better-known Victorian references to it include - Please reword this so that the inclusion of the Tennyson quote makes sense. Even if others used the Tennyson quote to refer to evolution, it was not written as a reference to Darwinism, which is what this explanation implies.
I hope this helps. Awadewit | talk 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is a former FAC, but failed to meet the criteria at the time largely because of concerns over the prose. Any comments on how to improve the prose would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Golem88991 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
After adding to the article on Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, I checked the link to Mary McLeod Bethune and noticed there were no references. In attempting to search for them, I noticed that almost the entire article was cut and pasted from other sources. I am a most unlikely biographer for Bethune, but the more I read about her, the more impressed I was by her life and the more astonished I was that her article was not of a higher quality. I worked on it for several days, rewrote most of it, and referenced everything I could find. If not for the information I added, her article should be featured for her extraordinary life. Moni3 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] Thanks,
DrKiernan
07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)I would like to eventually get this article to FA status. DTGardner 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I recently improved this article. It's currently a good article, but I'd like to get it featured. Specifically; is there anything missing, does the prose need improvement, is the language too technical and most importantly what does it need before it's ready to become a featured article. I have asked a photographer to release one of his images of the engine under a free license so hopefully there will be at least one more image soon. Thanks in advance, James086 Talk | Email 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see what i need to elevate this article, it needs a lot of work, just would like to get an idea of everything i need.
Thanks,
DTGardner 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately I’d like to get this to featured status but obviously there is a way to go. Right now I’m more just wanting to know if the info that is there is ok. At the moment I’m struggling to find anything to put in the “Style of play” and “off the pitch” sections. But clearly as his career develops I’ll be able to add more. Unfortunately I’m away for the next two weeks so I won’t be able to address any issues until then. Buc 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The depth in coverage is definitely there from my first glance at the article. I will try to fix as many phrasing and spelling issues as I can. I will not be modifying the substance, just minor fixes, so don't worry about me chopping off content. I have however, removed some parts which I found to be over-detailed or insignificant encyclopedically, but again, they won't be noticeable. Here's some of my suggestions:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 yards, use 30 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30 yards.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through it and improved grammar, made a few copyedits and added endashes. I think improvements needed are:
Those are the main improvements needed to be made as far as I can see. Apart from that it looks like it's shaping up to become a very good article. Good work Buc. Sir-Nobby 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Overall the article looks in good shape, keep up the good work. Dave101→ talk 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Getting this to FA status - or more specifically, keeping it there - will be a challenge; at 21 Milner is a fraction of the way through his career, making it likely the information will become outdated. That said, the article is in good shape in terms of comprehensiveness and isn't too far from Good Article level. Specific comments:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this article has certainly drawn a lot of feedback! Anyway, I think the article is in a nice shape now. My only grouse is that it is a *little* bland. But at least that avoids POV problems! Good job, although I would also add that, given Milner is still young, one's got to watch out for this article ballooning into a juggernaut. I think as seasons go by, sections will be condensed naturally so it's still all good. Chensiyuan 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is good enough to be a featured article. Saudi9999 06:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A short introduction: this place is not for discussing about featured article, but for requesting a peer review to this article. Here is my PR, in any case.
Here's all. I hope my suggestion are useful for you. -- Angelo 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it's GA material, my friend and I also wanted to know what we should do if it's not. We've been working very hard on it, and the only problem we can see is the limited source pool.
Thanks,
-- Kkr ouni /Ккроуни /ΚκρΩυνι 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
General recommendations:
Specific recommendations:
These last two comments will involve the most work; maybe even a complete rewrite:
Hope all that helps, -- DeLarge 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Just failed FAC so I'm giving it a PR. Buc 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments: (p.s. Sorry for the delay, been busy!) (p.p.s. I haven't had time to fully read the comments above, so if anything overlaps then I apologise now.)
This article need thorough and detailed proof reading. There are some horrible, obvious flaws that really should not be there if you are at all serious about asking people to spend time reading an article. You need to have the courtesy to present them with something which is as good as you can make it. Unless you completely flunked your GCSE English exam then there are many many errors in here which you ought to be embarassed about leaving in. Although I have given you plenty of specific sentences as examples, the general comments apply to the entire document, and are certainly not limited to those examples which I have chosen to highlight. Just because I haven't mentioned a specific problem does not indicate that it doesn't exist. You need to spend time reading this article slowly and thoroughly, do not be tempted to skim through and assume that is enough. I have just spent two and a half hours reading, thinking and writing these comments. It probably would have been better use of my time to simply do a proper copyedit straight away, but as you have shown a genuine desire to improve yourself as well as this article I thought it only fair to explain my thinking in detail. Sorry if some comments seem a bit picky or harsh, but the standard for prose in the FA criteria is that it is of near-professional quality. That is a tough ask, and will take much time and effort. I'll come back and do a copyedit when you have had a crack at the issues which Alex and I have raised here so far (and any others which subsequent reviewers make, of course!). I hope that by spending so much time slicing and dicing this text you can better appreciate my comment in the FAC that this would need a near-complete rewrite to get to FA status. There are few sentences, and no paragraphs in the entire article, that are as good as they could be. However, you have a good base to start from and an interesting and engaging subject. You could really use more historical context for Kubica's accident and Hamilton's victory and this would lift the article above the mundane. Good luck with the work! Pyrope 15:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The main concerns at the article's failed FAC were that the article did not correctly describe the extent of the fandom, and that at times it confused the "fandom" with the "popularity" of HP. I feel that I've cleaned these parts up since then, and I hope that, after the results of this PR, I can resend the article to FAC. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:36, 4 September 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, DTGardner 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA standard. I previously nominated it for FA, see HERE, but the article didn't make it. I think most of the concerns were addressed but I am looking for any comments that can improve the article. Especially the FA 1a criterion ((a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.) might be an issue.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide, Voorlandt 06:46, 8 September 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, DTGardner 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Archived PR: Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester United F.C./archive1
This article has improved a lot since the last Peer Review, and I would like it to be reviewed with a view to getting it to FA status in the near future. Thanks. - PeeJay 18:48, 9 September 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, DTGardner 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The History section is too long. -- Kaypoh 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
For the past couple months now, I've been constantly tweaking this article; the previous version was a wreck, consisting of barely more than an incomplete discography. I've added as many references as I could find, and have constantly reworking pieces of it. My eventual goal is to get it to at least WP:GA status. There're some parts I'm still uncertain on the quality of, however. Basically, I'm looking for the following:
Personally, I'd also like to get a better picture of the band (the only pic shows only half the band), but I don't have the resources. I would appreciate if someone could help there, too.
Thanks,
Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 18:16, 10 September 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, DTGardner 20:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've recently done a major re-write hopefully towards FAC and I want to see what else needs to be done.
Thanks,
Pilotguy 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary
You've still got some work to do, but great job so far; it's definitely in better shape than it was. I have some suggestions.
*Students and faculty: Calling it a "unique school" is almost definitely not NPOV, if you ask me. I've worked at and attended several colleges and they all claim to offer small class sizes. My grad school averages 15 students per class, so 30 at UNC Pembroke is not small anyway. See the NPOV problem? I'd also be okay with putting those two paragraphs together into one. Oh, and remember it should be "Students and faculty" with the small f. Done
*Sports, clubs, and traditions: (again, capitalization) Why italicize "Braves"? Also, the line: Due to its legacy as a Native American school, the Braves are typically not targeted in movements to change or ban Indian team names desperately needs citations. Also, expand the other two subsections on Clubs and Traditions, with sources where possible. Done With expanding for the most part.
*General: The article might be overdoing it on pictures (they're great, though). Consider moving the free images to Wikimedia Commons and creating a category you can link to from this article (ask me on my talk page if you need help with that specific suggestion). Once that's done, you can consider which are the more vital images and be able to make them a bit bigger without so much competition from other images. Done Disagree here but two images have been removed nonetheless. I can see you've probably already seen the recommended article structure over at the Universities wikiproject. Good call.
Well, I hope I was helpful! Good luck on continuing to improve this article! -- Midnightdreary 13:33, 8 September 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, DTGardner 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys. I'll try to work on this stuff later on (I've already removed two images). Pilotguy 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has had a lot of improvement in the last couple months but I'm no longer sure what else could be done to improve it. I also hope to use lessons learned from this article to continue to improve other television episode articles. I'd like particular comments on how the article is doing in regards to WP:EPISODE. Any advice on what to get rid of and what to expand would be appreciated as well.
Thanks,
Star dust 8212 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
All of those lists at the bottom of the article (characters, Fansworth's inventions etc.) seem pretty trivial, and should probably be removed if you want to go to GA with this. But other than that, it does look good, and I can't see any other glaring problems. Good job. Gran 2 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As a part of an improvement drive over at WikiProject Roller Coasters, I'd quite like to get this article up to scratch. I'm already aware that there's a severe lack of references and I'm already working on getting them in. What I think the article really needs is a review from the POV of a non-enthusiast, with the intention of getting this up to GA. Many thanks! Seaserpent85 Talk 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
VisitorTalk 08:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has recently become a GA, after a full re-write, a peer review, and a GA review critique. I'm hoping to bring it up to FA status in the next few weeks. It's currently 31k, has 25 sources and 9 good images. I'm wondering what kind of changes need to take place in order for it to become an FA. I'm willing to do the work myself, just need some critical eyes. Thanks a bunch! Nswinton\ talk 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article about an important mid-20th century American college and professional Canadian football player has been well referenced and cited using a variety of reputable sources. I believe the article should be rated above "B" class, and is worthy of being a "good" and even a "featured" article. I am open to any suggestions to make this article better. Sundevilesq 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 yards, use 2 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 yards.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been working up the page, and have incorporated most, if not all, of Yannismarou's helpful suggestions. I would REALLY like to move this article up to a GA level, and maybe even get it featured. Sundevilesq ( talk) 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello editors! World of Warcraft is one of the most popular MMORPGs in the world yet it is only a GA quality. A FA quality article would help increase knowledge of such games and would be the first MMORPG to become featured on Wikipedia. While the article is pretty good, some parts could use improvement. Therefore I am looking for someone to critique the article and provide advice on where improvements should be made to the article to help get it to FA quality. Thanks to anyone who helps :) -- Hdt83 Chat 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is on a metal drummer, would appreciate any feedback to get it read for FA. M3tal H3ad 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's all for now, I will take another look later. J Milburn 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some more points- J Milburn 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The research and references are fine, but the writing style needs significant editing to bring it up to encyclopedic standard.
The article often bumps together parts A and C without mention of part B of the story.
"With the drumkit, Lombardo purchased his first record..." implies that he got a really bad deal trading in the kit at a pawn shop for one LP! This sentence should be rewritten. Did his father include the record along with the kit?
Moby Dick reference jumps from "was not familiar with the material" to "after doing so" (playing the song with mastery, I assume you meant). Need a transitional sentence.
"...parents threatened to put him in a military school." Did they withdraw the threat? Did he have to give up late night events until leaving home?
"As Slayer's line-up was complete..." Did the band already have everyone but a drummer? The article jumps from King's own guitar collection, presumably at his home, to a full band taking the show on the road.
Hoglan appears and promptly disappears from the article. Is he really relevant?
Lombardo's wife appears without a mention of when they were married.
"Grip" section jumps from appropriate past tense into present tense discussion of events in the past.
He had to miss the 2005 Fantomas tour. Did he ever tour with them?
Should change to "Ten years after departing from Slayer..." and include the name of the manager.
The Christy quote should either cite the exact words for "blown away," or the summary should be rewritten to a less cliche term.
Finnish should be capitalized.
VisitorTalk http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Dave_Lombardo&action=edit§ion=4 Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Dave Lombardo (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit of the entire article. However, the prose still needs attention and is the weakest component of the article as it stand. I recommend having another editor read and copyedit the page. The article in general seems ok, but I'm not too sure about the exensive use of reviews. Certainly there neds to be critical recognition of Lombardo's work, but since he's only a component of a complete group, single out sentences in reviews that mention him often seems like stretching the point. I'll try and offer more comments soon. WesleyDodds 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked very hard on this article, especially to find sources (having trouble with a few). I just wondered if it could be improved, is it B-class yet? Could it make GA? Any comments would be appreciated. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be edited, revised, and improved by another editor. I've contributed a large majority of the content and feel I can't take the article much further. I think the article could be a top rated article, even a feature article, with some more work done to it.
Thanks,
User:calbear22 18:44, 31 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, DrKiernan 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review in an attempt to get this article rated above "Start" class. The article is referenced, is relevant, and gives a detailed biography of an important old school hip hop/ electronic music pioneer, Kurtis Mantronik. The article should rate, at a minimum, a "B" class. Sundevilesq 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… Friday Night Lights is a growing article and grow articles usually need a GA/FA sub-article to become better. I've adde references, summary, what else?
Thanks,
Twlighter 21:25, 9 September 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, DTGardner 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This article on the 36-year old Project Gutenberg digital library is in decent shape, but I'd like to find out if there are any suggestions for improvement. It does need some additional references. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is good but not great and I and others would like this article to be the first to be given a Good Article status for the Cartoon Network project. Just a few pointers as to what we can tighten up and expand upon. No automatic peer review suggestions please, we plan to action upon those soon. treelo talk 11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
*Please see
automated peer review suggestions
here. Thanks,
APR
t
17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary I don't think this article is ready for GA just yet, though I don't know what the standards are from the WP:Cartoon Network. Here's my two cents...
I hope to get the article of Fefe Dobson to Featured Article status and I would like suggestions for what needs to be done. Rainer1 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Epeefleche 05:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary
Best of luck. -- Midnightdreary 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Randy Orton is a bright upstart in the wrestling industry, and because he happened to start his career at a time when most wrestling fans began to blab info on their computers, there's a wealth of info on him. He's a popular wrestler, a controversial figure in his own right, and a colorful character in the ring. Although far from a mainstream celebrity or a popular influential person, his biography, because he is so well-known among today's wrestling community, can serve as a guide for the pages of other wrestlers.
Truth be known, most wrestling-oriented wikipedians lack the necessary perspective to put the details of his life in order; with the help of ordinary editors, who are not fans of the sport and who will not give value to useless details, this page can become a major success for writing articles on wrestling subjects.
I appreciate all feedback! Sincerely, -- Screwball23 talk 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been a GA for a while now and after I made a lot of changes to it I kind of left it alone for a while. It's not too far away from FA material I think, but I would like some suggestions as to how to get it on its way there. Sportskido8 15:59, 27 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, Hfarmer 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a few things for now:
-- Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 10:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to get this to featured article status. Any feedback is welcome. Help is particularly needed in reorganizing it. If anyone has additional information on the history of the game, please add that as well. Thanks,
Captain Zyrain 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article, more than deserving of featured article status.
This is the second time this article has been reviewed. I removed the original research that was discussed in the first review, and sourced alternative analysis of the ballad. Although I still have significant grammatical editing to do, content-wise do you all think this article meets the FAC?
Thanks, APAULCH 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ballad of the White Horse/archive1
Review by Midnightdreary
I'm purposefully reviewing this without looking at the previous peer review so if I'm repeating some of what was said there, that's why! I'm also not familiar with the poem so I'm giving this a complete set of fresh eyes. :)
I hope this was helpful. Best of luck on this article! -- Midnightdreary 13:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Response by APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It may take me a while to put all your reccomendations into effect. Here's a question:
Thanks, APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If your sources for the article are online, could you please link them? - Malkinann 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't post a link because it was in a limited-access database. I think you should be able to find the article in most databases or maybe from the journal Thought.
Do you think I should change it from a book-by-book analysis to a topic-by-topic analysis? That would make it easier to include other sources (if I can find more-the book is not well known). There is a little analysis in the book itself (as well as reviews of it when it was first published, which I may be able to use). I also have a homeschool study guide for it, which has a few excellent interpretations but I don't know if it was really "published" or just printed off someone's personal computer for sale.
I agree that the quotations make it long and cumbersome, but I also think they help illustrate some of the points made. However, this probably isn't necessary. Are there any guidlines or additional opinions?
Thanks, APAULCH 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any numerical ID. The volume info is Thought Vol. LXVI, No. 261, June 1991, pp. 161-78
APAULCH
21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hope to make this a FAC after this PR. Buc 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Its in a very good state. Not too far off a FAC now. Mattythewhite 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As a relatively unknown composition of a fading genre, I'd like to get feedback on what improvements can be made to get this to the highest possible quality. ALTON .ıl 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I do wonder about the Commons audio files: doesn't sound like a Finale output; are you sure? Pity they're so short and end with a sudden yanking out of the texture. Tony 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your edits to the articles and the suggestions. It's at FAC now. ALTON .ıl 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Current GA. Article failed at FAC a few weeks ago. I think images, referencing and completeness are pretty good, it's really everything else I'm worried about ;) Having said that, comments on anything are more than welcome. Thanks. Chwe ch 19:37, 1 September 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, Aqwis 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for comments on the entire article. Sorry to not be more specific, but I guess I'm looking to improve everything that I can with it. I can be more specific, now that I think about it. Ultimately I'd like to get this to FA status, so any suggestions for how to improve with that goal in mind are what I'm looking for. Thanks,
JCO312
21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the sentences seem a little on the terse side, which (to me at least) hinders the flow slightly. But overall the article seems fine. I only have a few suggestions:
I hope this was helpful. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm attempting again for a push to FA, and I think that I've included nearly everything I can that is verifiable, but my main concern is the dreaded 1a), so I would like opinions on ways to improve the text of the article. Will ( talk) 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is about one of the handful of asteroids to be visited by a spacecraft, and the largest thus far. I've tried to expand the content to cover what is currently known based on scientific publications. Is there anything else that you would like to see presented? Do you have any suggestions for improvements? Is it too dry and academic? My goal is to bring it up to GA status. Thank you!!! — RJH ( talk) 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Snake scales is presently a GA. I would be grateful for the following kinds of feedback -
For your info: the snake scale names in the sections dealing with nomenclature were bolded intentionally for maximum utility for readers to help them follow the annotated sketches effectively.
Thanks in advance, AshLin
Review by Totnesmartin
The first think that strikes me is the essayish tone of the article. it has a unique "voice", as if written by a single, well-informed editor - and in fact this is almost the case. It would need some rewriting to resemble a typical WP article, as well as some tweaking of the explanations - for instance, the fairly well-known Dorsal is explained in the article, but the obscure Mental groove isn't. There are some other problems as well, such as the opening statement that scales are important to snakes because it classifies them as reptiles - it's not important to a snake' how it's classified by us. So yes, this is a good article but it needs style editing. The picture at the top is beautiful.
I can't comment on the scientific accuracy as it's outside my area. 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking here. We're mainly looking for many more good references and sources, as well as expanding a few key section. I will add more information when I log in from home. Reason turns rancid 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary:
I have taken the HdB page from start-class through a successful GA review. It has been thoroughly combed over by the inestimable Awadewit, and I'm interested in submitting it to FA candidacy. I've worked really hard on it (to which he can attest), and I've got my eyes on the FA star. Thanks in advance. — Scartol · Talk 01:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is modeled after the various Simpsons episode FAs and I think this page is looking pretty good, although some of the prose could be better. -- Scorpion 0422 03:56, 7 September 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, DTGardner 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
After making this article DYK quality a couple months back, I want to know what needs to be done to make this either a GA or at least a B-class article. All comments welcome. Wizardman 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a bit, I got a wee bit more information I could add, but a search for waht you asked for came up empty, sorry. Wizardman 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent much time expanding it, adding references and extra information and would like to see it qualify as a GA. Any recommendations would be greatly appreatiated.
Thanks,
DrWeetAls 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This article just passed a GA review. As the sole major contributor, I would like to get wider constructive criticism and suggestions to ready the article for an FA nomination. Thank you! -- Melty girl 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]1 year has passed since this article's last nomination for FA status. I believe the article has improved a lot since then, and I would like to see if it can be improved further and if it is FA material. This article previously underwent a Peer Review, which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Puerto Rico/archive1. -- Boricua e ddie 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would really like feedback from uninterested parties on this topic. The article is all about the controversey surrounding a given scientific theory of transsexualism, where the controversey took on a life of it's own. For example, there are people who would take vehement offence to the use of the phrase "scientific theory" in relation to this topic. Hence I feel a need for a peer reivew by uninterested parties. I have tried to be neutral and as fair as possible to everyone. I want to know if others also think this article is truly NPOV. I also want to know if there are any suggestions on how I could describe the ad hominem arguements, in a shorter form, while not seeming to take sides. So far I have used quotes, perhaps I should summarize and paraphrase? Any suggestions at all would be taken and followed.
Thanks,
Hfarmer 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Oil shale/archive1
After first peer review spin-off articles based on main sections were created and article sections summarize spin-off articles. Following spin-off articles are listed also for the peer review:
The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Beagel 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale geology, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale reserves, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale extraction, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale economics, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including History of the oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
After peer review of the Oil shale article, several spin-off articles, including Environmental effects of oil shale industry, were created. The intention is to develop this article for GA and FA nominations. Following related articles are listed also for the peer review:
Thanks,
Beagel 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've originally started this article to fill a red link, but then I started taking interest in finding sources, so it progressively expanded to reach a respectable 30KB. I've attempted to source it the most carefully possible, and it seems to be mostly ok on this side; what worries me most is 1) the absence of images 2) the prose, as I'm no native 3) I've been quite extensive in the description of the constitution as approved in 1996, maybe too extensive; what do you think? Any suggestion, even brief hints, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks in advance, Aldux 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Speak a few solid days getting this to GA, and now I need some opinions to take it further. Mainly on the layout of the career, if anyone has any sources to expand the early and personal life sections, and the prose (which I think needs work), and anything else. Thanks. Gran 2 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hurray for Hank Azaria! I've loved The Simpsons and Mr. A for years, and I'm delighted to see him get such a thorough, well-written page. The structure of the Career section could use some work; see below.
Here are some notes, in order of their appearance in the article.
I hope this is helpful. Again, nice article. Good luck with it, and drop me a line if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Done most of the stuff, I disagree with some of your structural propsals, but will consider some form of them. I've gone through each of your points to explain what I have done. Thanks for the review. Gran 2 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review on the advice of an editor at requests for feedback. Basically I want to know where to go next, I've improved the article a lot in the last month or so and I want to keep momentum. I know there is no picture, but I'm stuck as to where to get one (i was planning to take one on saturday but she didnt turn up). Aside from that any suggestions are welcome. Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place for this or if anyone feels this is a waste of the process. Cheers, Jdcooper 12:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is on the oldest shows that the project I'm connected to has and I would like to have this article worthy of at least Good Article or better status. Any advice on syntax or length would be appreciated.
Thanks, treelo talk 12:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have kind of hit a brick wall for improving it. Not because I think it's great, quite the opposite, but I just need more input. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I hope that John Mayer can some day be a featured topic.
Thanks,
Esprit15d 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it generally conforms to WP:SONG, but I don't think it's perfect, and would welcome input from the community. Since this song has had a wonderful year of notability, I think it would also be good for this article to have a higher standard of quality.
Thanks,
Esprit15d 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant improvements to the page and I am looking where I can go further, beyond charting the progress of the character through the 40 books. I'm strongly considering adding detail from The Wishing Horse of Oz.
Thanks,
Scottandrewhutchins 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it into shape for Featured Article status. Since it's about a fictional character, all the annoying but vital aspects of WP:WAF apply, so I guess the question is how does it do in terms of out of universe. One note: I know the "...in other media" section is too brief right now, but anything else, point out here.
Thanks, David Fuchs ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I worked on this article sometime ago (february-may this year) - after I noted it in DYK; it was listed as GA in June and nothing much has been done to it since then. I would like to get this article to higher status, however I already have done pretty much all I could do for it so I decided to put it up here to see what else should be done, if everything is clear, especialy to people unfamiliar to topic. Thanks -- Xil/ talk 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This good article is WikiProject Harry Potter's best hope for its next featured article. Any comments and criticisms are solicited before it braves featured article candidacy. Happy-melon 17:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Last night, I wrote this review over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Emma Watson -- today, I went looking for it on Wikipedia:Peer_review and saw only the above review. I'm pasting it in here so that you don't miss it. -- Melty girl 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is comprehensive and well-sourced. For me, the main issue to address is the confusing organization of the sections of the article. Their order and hierarchy seems confused, and the section names are often misleading. But these things are easily fixed. First, about the broader outline of the article:
Onto organization within the sections:
I think that once you rearrange the article some, you'll also find yourself tightening up some of the language and the flow. You've got a great start; I think you just need to be a little more strict about the organization of the article. Cheers, Melty girl 03:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I just corrected a minor style thing. I'm moving right now, so I don't have time to continue this process more deeply, but I noticed that there are still at least two placement things that were not addressed, if not more: The new Celebrity section has items that do not relate to her Celebrity status. And why does the feminism paragraph start with "Finally"? Is it because it used to follow something else where "Finally" made sense? I strongly suggest that you be more ruthless about organizational issues and related writing/flow issues before braving FAC. Have fun with the article. -- Melty girl 00:45, 1 September 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, DTGardner 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Article currently at GA status. Hopefully with the comments we get, me and 4u1e will hopefully be able to improve it, and possibly nominate it for FA status in the forthcoming months. Davnel03 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
between a number and the unit. Instead of 5 litre, use 5 litre so that you don't get the number on one line and the litre/inches/pounds on the next line.
I do not have too many things to add, just some things that stuck out to me as odd:
I think that covers all the tiny things I found. The359 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through your article and understood it well. Having no prior knowledge I thought it was certainly clear and I didn't get lost. As i'm not sure about the actual technical stuff i'll comment more on the layout etc..
This article is well written and referenced as far as I can see. Hope these few comments help, Bobbacon 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
An amazing read, and I have little to add here. My main concerns regard the lede. Comments:
Overall the article was an excellent read. It manages to explain the technical aspects of the car without excessive jargon and neatly covers both the physical car and it's achievements & performances. Anyway, onto the feedback:
That's pretty much all I can come up with for now, the rest of it looked really good. AlexJ 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A single by the American alternative rock band Pixies. Looking to take this to featured status soon, so I would appreciate comments on its comprehensiveness and prose. CloudNine 13:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Peer review by Midnightdreary
This is a great song, and a great article. Here are some suggestions:
Overall, a good article, very easy to read and interesting. Keep up the good work and consider some of my suggestions. As much as it pains me to say it, look at " Hollaback Girl" for a featured song article. Follow their formula and you may be on your way to getting this to FA too. Best of luck! -- Midnightdreary 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on this article lately and was wondering what else could be done to bring this up to a GA standard? Comments appreciated. Timeshift 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hoping to improve this article to Good Article status but I have kind of hit the wall with it. ANy help appricated.-- Vintagekits 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has a lot of good information and referenced data. Its main problems seem to be organization and grammar (spelling and usage). I'd recommend some thematic reorganization (see notes below) and an afternoon with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, going through and fixing the little bits.
Note: This is my first peer review. I apologize in advance if I lead you astray in any areas. Also, I just noticed that someone did a review of sorts on the article's talk page. I don't think I'm duplicating anything written there, but I apologize if this is the case.
Rather than go through and pinpoint every item which catches my eye, I'll end my review here. Good luck with the article and let me know if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope to have this article brought up to FA status. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kinston eagle 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Review by Midnightdreary
This is really a great article; you've definitely done a lot of work and it's to be commended. I'm going to focus on only a few sections but give you an overwhelming amount of specific details about those sections. Here we go...
(Taking a quick breather... and here we go again...)
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to improve to good article standard or even featured article standard. The article is well written, but i think it still have space to be improve, and i also want to know how to write a long lead section in this article.
Thanks,
Aleen f1 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Citation needed....many believed that the organisers did not have plans to deal with it...
Citation needed.Sources say there were only so many buses, which were quickly filled...
Citation needed.Many volunteers have been complaining about the lack of transportation needed to take them to their locations...
Otherwise, I think you have done good work thus far. DrWeetAls 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like advice and help in improving this article for possible good article status Shinerunner 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks,
Shinerunner 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to offer further thoughts on how the article could be improved- drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn 19:42, 26 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, Hfarmer 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added some detail to his recent seasons with Ajax, but I'd like to get some feedback that would help me to improve the article in general. Thanks in advance for any advice! JACO PLANE • 2007-08-27 18:45
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Hfarmer 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Various comments:
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons (album)
I've listed this article for peer review because I and my co-author ( Ksy92003) hope to take this article to WP:GAC in the near future. Thanks, TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Hfarmer 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How can I improve this article to (or at least nearer to) Featured Article status? It's been a Good Article since March 02, 2007. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be greatly appreciated if members with scientific knowledge would look over the validity of the claims made on this page and also help to establish a more scientific understanding of this subject. Jmm6f488 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of disagreement over the correct terms and classifications for what pedophilia is. It would be greatly appreciated if members with a background in science could review this article and help bring it up to a more scientific standard. As it is now there is a lot of POV problems with the article. Thanks, Jmm6f488 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Two of my fellow editors suggested nominating this article for peer review (it currently is rated 'B' class), and I would mostly like help in properly formatting and endnoting the references section, have an impartial observer locate any parts in need of citation or expansion, and point out any deficiencies that would keep it from being upgraded to a better class. Thanks! JMax555 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]What a pleasure to read this article - I learned so much! I love all of the beautiful images, too. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Lead:
Content:
Small things:
Prose (if you go for FA, I would suggest a copy editor - someone who hasn't spent hours staring at the same sentences over and over again - it is very helpful to have a pair or two of fresh eyes):
MOS (if you go for FA, spend a day perusing the WP:MOS and making sure that the article meets every single standard - that way the FAC won't descend into long list of your MOS violations):
Again, this article was so enjoyable to read. If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Palestine was a WikiProject Palestine collaboration for some time and has been significantly improved by multiple editors. I am looking for feedback on how to further improve the article before submitting it for Featured Article status. Your comments would be very much appreciated. Tiamat 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a long article, but any feedback, even on parts, or technical aspects, anything at all, would be very greatly appreciated. It's a crash course in 600,000 years of human habitation and imperial history in a strategic geopolitical location. Check it out. :) Tiamat 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is WAY too long. I recommend creating a new article, "Pre-WWI history of Palestine." All the historical demographic and genetics information should go in that new article. (I wouldn't be surprised if other editors call for the genetics section to be yet its own article. After splitting off that material, the result would be a much more coherent article about modern Palestine, which should definitely include at least a paragraph about current conflicts.
It would be helpful to add a Geography section clarifying the various subregions and notable locations. VisitorTalk 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some non-Aggie eyes to look at it. I am eventually planning to nominate this for Featured Article consideration. Before that, however, I need to make sure that the article makes sense to people who haven't lived and breathed the Texas A&M traditions. Please let me know if specific sections don't provide enough detail or provide too much detail. I also welcome recommendations on what, if anything, should be cut, and on anything non-Aggies have heard of that should be included.
Thanks,
Karanacs 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! (I hope I pronounced that right, I'm not from Texas but I've visited there.) The article seems fine. The only item I'd heard of before was the bonfire deaths as reported in the news. It would help to make this a subsection, so that it shows up in the table of contents as that's what I looked for first. VisitorTalk 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it makes sense, and I'm certainly not an "aggie", never having been to Texas. Some things I find myself wondering: Howdy - how prevalent is this? Has it more or less replaced "hello" and "how's it going", or is it mostly just something people do on special occasions? Football - I have no idea what is meant by "step off the wood". Toresica 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll try to explain both Howdy and "off the wood" a little better. Karanacs 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been editing this article for some time, and would appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Skeezix1000 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
To be complete, the article should include a little more information about the town after the war: population, economy, whether it is frequented by historically-minded tourists, etc. VisitorTalk 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We're deeply focused on getting this article to FA class, but it is probably not ready for FAC yet. The article reached GA status about a month ago, and has improved a great deal since then. Although the whole article needs reviewing, the main thing I would like the reviewer to focus on is the "Musical Style" section, which is only a few days old. Thanks. Grim-Gym 04:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a few comments to the talk page for the article.
VisitorTalk
16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Done
References need to be consistently and correctly formatted. I started on it, but don't have time to finish. Refs with URLs all need retrieval requests. Should be: Last, First (date). Title. Work or Publisher, pages. Retrieved on date. - URL goes with title, of course. Directly after punctuation, no space before, no punctuation after. I'll review more later.
LARA
♥LOVE
06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Done
After reading up on Frank Barson I decided to look him up on wikipedia and found this was the article. I then decided to expanded it and put it up for a GA realising that i had a lot more to do to get it to that standard so i was wondering what needs doing? Baring in mind there isn't much info about him as his playing career finished in 1939 but started in 1911! Thank you ( Everlast1910( Talk) 09:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
Always good to read a well-developed article about a player from the game's early days, even if he spend six years playing for the dark side.
Done:he finished playing for Villa in 1923 so added the
![]() | This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1929 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details. |
![]() |
tag
Done
Done
Done
Done
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Get around to everything else in a bit Everlast 1910 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Everlast 1910 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
He is Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2006. I would like to work to upgrade this article at least to a GA status. Please help me with your suggestions. Arman Aziz 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy to give further advice, contact me on my talk page. J Milburn 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how we can improve it and potentially get it up to featured article standards. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated
Thanks,
Brendan44 12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you've done a lot of work so far, but I think you still have a lot to do before going for FA. The most glaring problem with the article is its lack of citations. Every single quotation must be cited, and most facts should also be cited from a reputable source. Furthermore, the prose needs work. Some of it does not send formal enough, and in other cases it is choppy or does not flow well. I haven't gone too far into the details, but here are some examples of the problems I saw.
Good luck! Karanacs 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Some footnotes are a little messy-
Now, some non-reference issues-
Happy to analyse further, drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed an FAC nom ( see link), largely on the grounds that it gave undue weight to a minority opinion ( WP:UNDUE). The issue here is that, while this may be a minority opinion, it has nonetheless played an important role in the life of the books and has had a massive cultural impact, just as, to use a more extreme example, al-Qaeda and the IRA are infinitesimal minorities of their respective religions, but their opinions and actions have had a large impact on outside culture.1 I am interested in finding ways that this could be accurately presented without appearing to offend people of religious faith, who seem the most askance at this article.
Thanks,
Serendipod ous 08:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(btw, note to the confused: in response to complaints, this article has gone through six separate title changes)
1To give some quantifiable evidence for this impact, harry-potter alone produces 134 million separate Google hits, whereas harry-potter and religion OR christian OR christianity produces 23 million Google hits, or 17 percent of the total. By contrast, performing the same pair of searches for Narnia and Lord of the Rings, both well-known Christian allegories, produces 21 and 14 percent respectively, and Star Wars produces only 2 percent.
The current version seems fine to me. Good show! VisitorTalk 16:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Some views on how this article can be improved would be immensely helpful as it is intended to take it up to GA level. Many thanks! Seaserpent85 Talk 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
On the whole, quite good. Just a few things-
This article was originally forked off from the main Gillingham F.C. article due to its length, but I see no reason why it couldn't also reach FA status, so I've been working hard on it over the last week or so, and would now appreciate feedback on anything I still need to work on.
Many thanks!!!!
ChrisTheDude 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A very good overall standard, covering all eras and with no obvious POV issues. These comments cover minor issues, of style rather than content.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been steadily improving this article about Ban Ki-moon, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations. As one of the most important diplomats in the world, I would like to get this up to Featured Article status. I would like guidance on where the article needs improvement (and bear in mind, his early and personal life and career before becoming secretary general are not 1/50th as well documented as, say, a U.S. president) and particularly how best to deal with the section on his current term as Secretary-General. Would small subsections of the biggest issues during his term, much like recent Featured Article Ronald Reagan be the best way to approach?
Thanks, -- JayHenry 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've spent a great deal of time writing articles on the various carom billiards disciplines (a labor of love). This article is essentially my summary of that prior foundation. Already a GA and selected for
Wikipedia:Version 0.7, I would like some suggestions for further improvement and expansion. Any clarifications, prose issues, etc. are welcome. Please don't provide an automated peer review. Note that I am aware of the recently added, fragmented text at the end of the three cushion billiards section.--
Fuhghettaboutit
22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
<automated peer review removed>
Review by Midnightdreary Great job on this article, plenty of good sources (though, really, you can never have enough, right?). Here are some suggestions.
Well, I hope I was helpful. Best of luck with this article and other work here on Wikipedia! -- Midnightdreary 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This list was an absolute mess when I found it, so I restructured it based on other television episode lists. I guess I wanted some opinions on what I can do to bring this up to Featured List status - my thoughts were that individual episode summaries would make this page absolutely unbearable, but that individual season summaries might be appropriate. I also wasn't sure how to handle the writer/director red links. I know that individual episodes should not be linked if they have no page, but I wasn't sure about the people involved. I'm willing to do what it takes to improve this list (as I hope I've shown by my work on it so far) so please let me know. Thanks and Cheers, CP 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to AnonEMouse, I got some great tips on getting this article up to B class and getting a free picture. Now I'd like to get it up to Good Article status and I wanted to know what I could/should do to do that. Any help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I think it's a bit too short, that's my biggest GA concern. I'm willing to do whatever work is necessary. I'd also like to review one or two of the other requests here. Do I need to be a member of WPBIO to do that? Cheers, CP 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to totally revamp the article over the last couple of months, and would like an outsider to suggest ways to improve the article and make it GA standard. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Sam Orchard 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a mention of the importance of videos to their career in the MTV era. Other than that, it seems to me to be a fine article. VisitorTalk 06:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to achieve a Featured article status, it is a quite famous, and musically important band, and now disbanded. I spent an enormous time improving it, it was basically totally unreferenced and without enough information and no images. But I know it is no reason for a FA that I worked on it for a long time:) So I requested peer review to have other people check the article against the criterias, because I can't see more problems, but I'm sure there are many.
Thanks,
Gocsa 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, the article is good, and I really need to get back to RL. But these are just some things I picked up on.-- Esprit15d 20:57, 27 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, Hfarmer 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The article looks very good so far, but it does require a thorough copyedit. In particular, the lead section needs to be rearranged for grammar and clarity. I'll put it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music's prose review section in hopes that someone can take a look at it. Also, I'm not really sure the "Solo projects" section is all that necessary; with everything these bandmembers have done such information is best reserved for the individual member pages. WesleyDodds 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on Forbidden City for a while, with the aim of getting it to featured article status. I feel that it is meeting or close to meeting the criteria, so I would appreciate any comments or suggestions in that regard. Some things which I would like a "fresh eye" to comment on include style and quality of prose, formatting of references, and image quantity/placement. Thanks in advance, -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 04:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a good well constructed article, few pointers
There a few comments, not a good review though. SpecialWindler talk 06:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lazy review by mcginnly 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 7 metres, use 7 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 metres.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
mcginnly has made a lot of good points, so I won't repeat them. My only real bug is that a lot of citations come from the same source - "Yu". Would it be possible to have some of them replaced to vary the sources used?
DoneAlso, I don't see the original references for "Yu" and "Yang" - you need to have full citations for the first time they're used.
John Smith's
13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This article looks very good. One minor comment is that there are a lot of paragraphs with only a few sentences in them. Very often there are only two or three sentences per paragraph. I would either merge or expand them so that the text flows more and isn't as broken by spaces. Secondly, it would be advantageous to have a labeled plan, diagram, or axonometric drawing that shows the locations of the individual buildings such as the gates and halls that are discussed. Furthermore, you can add a few more references, such as [5] if you have access, and you can also work from some surveys such as [6]. It is smart that you are using plenty of Chinese sources but the article may benefit from a few more in English. Where you are at now looks very close to featured article status. Well done so far and good luck. D. Recorder 01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was nominated for Featured status, before going through an FAR and demoting this article from Featured status. Any suggestions to get this back up to Featured status should be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to note that the article also needs to be reviewed to see if it reaches FA-Class. Thank you. Mr. Mario 192 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like this article to be reviewed for the following:
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 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I found the current version of the article difficult to follow. There is a link to "jihad," but not to "lesser jihad." The introduction says that the laws govern diplomacy, but the only diplomacy-related comments in the article were duplicate comments about the requirement to accept peace treaties. There was nothing in the article about how Islamic soldiers are dealt with when accused of military offenses; is there an Islamic equivalent to the Western court-martial? Where differences of interpretation were noted, it was not made clear if this is because the Quran does not specifically address those issues, leaving room for interpretation based on different traditions, or whether there are specific texts but different traditions insist on differing applications of those verses. The line "historically, lack of a central religious authority..." could well be expanded into its own paragraph, with well cited examples through history. The article does seem grammatically correct, but it would help to break the longer sentences into short, one-thought sentences where practical. It would be useful to cite research about how different philosophies of military jurisprudence have contributed to the outcomes of various battles and wars between the Islamic world and opponents from other cultural and religious traditions. VisitorTalk 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I done some major work on this article and would like advice and comments. Looking to resubmit this artilce for Good Article Review. Thanks Shinerunner 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
LuciferMorgan 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'm starting to verify statements through alternate sources. Shinerunner 21:39, 7 August 2007 (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 100 miles, use 100 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 miles.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:02, 16 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 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is on the short side and is lacking in citations. The lead does not serve as a concise overview of the article. The Genre overview section relies too much on a bulleted list—can that be worked into prose? The article does no say where the term "Low fantasy" originated. Who are the most notable authors who write in this genre? Have there been low fantasy films or TV series? Instances where specific books are listed as "low fantasy" should be cited (such as a review where it is clasified as "low fantasy"). Hope this was some help. — RJH ( talk) 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently rewrote this and looking for comments before submitting as a featured item. Thanks! GCW50 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting, but it doesn't seem quite there yet. Some comments:
Hope this helps a little. — RJH ( talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just written up this article after a fellow WP:HMM participant recommended it to me, and now I would like to know what I can do to push it that little bit further up to Good Article standard. It's only short, but they are a side project that has released one album, so it is hard to write much. Not sure which areas may need work, and I am open to all suggestions.
Thanks. J Milburn 12:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Rockdetector: What can one expect in future material from CHROME DIVISION?
Shagrath - "It's a band like AC/DC – when you buy an AC/DC album you know what you get. Musically it'll be the same thing, but we'll try to add different ingredients to the music. Maybe we'll also change the lyrical content."
Rockdetector: During rehearsals in the band's early days, did you perform cover songs?
Shagrath: "We tried out a few Rock N' Roll jams fused with some TWISTED SISTER. I'm sure when we do live shows we'll perform some more cover songs."
Rockdetector - Are there any particular songs, or bands?
Shagrath - "Some MÖTLEY CRÜE songs from their first album maybe? We'll see."
The Motorhead comparison was particularly picked upon in the Rockdetector interview, as can be seen here;
Rockdetector: It sounded a lot like MOTÖRHEAD to me
Shagrath: "Yeah MOTÖRHEAD also. We don't take direct inspiration from those bands though; you're not gonna see us sit down and think 'now let's make a MOTÖRHEAD song."
There's probably interviews with a lot of other information also. LuciferMorgan 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work so far, a few comments:
I'll add some more comments soon. Keep it up! CloudNine 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
After a previous peer review, I've now got a little bit of time on my hands, and am keen to prod this slowly towards featured article status. I'm going to fix the timeline soon (when I work out what's changed to break it!) and would welcome any other comments about the content and flow, in light of comments on the talk page.
Many thanks,
Verisimilus T 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice work on an interesting topic. I have a few comments that I hope are of some use:
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is currently a GA. I'm looking for any comments anyone may have, with the long-term aim of getting this to FA status. SP-KP 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to know what kind of things does this page need to be nominated for a feature article. Thanks! Limetolime 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please search for errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar.
I hope to make the article interesting and informative for lay readers, while providing a useful starting-point for scholarly research. I will be grateful for suggestions relative to either of those objectives. Wugo 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Utcursch, especially for the better reference. I was not aware of the curly-bracket commands, {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite book}}, and {{ cite web}}. I shall look them up and, thenceforth, use them. Wugo 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please add all the comments, requests, additions, adjustments that you would like to recommend, especially if you are an expert or an interested person. :) Wik idea 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that this list is compiled mainly by one user and therefore is not a consensus. Further, as I mentioned on the talk page, there's a long list of complaints, however little initiative from what I can see to actually address them. Also in regards to the complaints; while some of the information may be common knowledge, a bulk of the arguments may not be and there's no sources provided to backup the claims. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm listing this article as I'd particularly like some feedback from someone unfamiliar with the topic. (Comments from people familiar are welcome as well of course!) Ways of improving the structure and/or heading would be of particular help. Frankly I've been looking at this article for way too long and need a fresh perspective. Caveat lector 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking for the review. The subject seems noteworthy and you have a good start at the article. However, I believe several changes are in order.
Throughout the article, it would help to break long, complex sentences into short sentences which each address only one idea.
The initial sentence needs to be rewritten, as the current language implies that the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
The lead says "there has never been a formal agreement," but the 1922 section says "an agreement to this effect was reached between the two sides." That's confusing. In 1952, was there "an agreement" or only a unilateral change to the UK's "relevant immigration law?"
I'm confused as to why Ireland would have been "required to follow changes in British immigration policy" in the absence of a formal agreement.
Is the section about EEA nationals actually relevant in an article about the CTA?
I believe the Schengen section should be retitled, "Effect of potential Schengen integration" or something like that. I was halfway through the section before I realized it was about a hypothetical change.
Is there research indicating public opinion about the CTA, EEA and Schengen integration?
In practical terms, what does the CTA's existence mean to citizens of the area and to international visitors from outside the EEA?
VisitorTalk 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Would be grateful for any comments or input on style, scope and content of the article. -- Grimne 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting this article be rated as "Start" as opposed to "Stub". It seems substantially similar, for instance, to the A. J. Croce page, which is cited as a canonical example of "Start" class bio pages. That's all. Jkraybill 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A while back I asked Jonyungk about getting this article to featured status. He had already been working on it for some time and continued to work on it tirelessly until it became what it is now. I never knew until recently that it is good to peer review an article before nominating it to featured status, and so here it is at your disposal. Is there anything left that needs done for it to be submitted for FAC? — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Tchaikovsky being gay [sic] needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction." Can you expound on this a bit? It is sourced and widely known that he had homosexual feelings (after all the talk page shows it falls under WikiProject LGBT Studies). — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:26, 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.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In the 10,000 foot view, I notice that the article as it stands is mainly a biography; it ends with a very short section on works and style. Detailed sections are available as links. Were these split off because there were complaints the article was too long? My opinion (feel free to disagree) is that it's OK to have long articles on subjects like this one, and that any article on a composer should be 40-60% biography and 40-60% works/style/influence. Sometimes that material can be integrated into the biography, but it's tough to do--better IMO to have a separate section as you do. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
" While not part of the nationalistic music group " The Russian Five", Tchaikovsky wrote music now known and loved for its distinctly Russian character, rich harmonies and stirring melodies. His works, however, are much more western than those of his Russian contemporaries as he effectively uses international elements in addition to national folk melodies."
- Saying T's music is "loved" is a POV statement. It would be more objective to note things such as how often his works are still performed today at classical concerts, or used as incidental music in cinema, etc. - The sentence handwaves to another article for any explanation of what might be the characteristics of "Russian-sounding music" - what are "rich" harmonies? - "stirring" melodies is not an objective phrase -- feline1 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this is still a future project but it is referenced quite well and there are a few other good features. I am a little worried that some sections are too short and possible OR. What should be required for this to become GA standard? Does it have to wait until the company comes into service? Simply south 11:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
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'm considering submitting this as a FAC, but there's a lot of history missing, despite the length of the section already (Once filled out, it will definitely be in need of some WP:SS-ing which I unfortunately don't have time for right now.). Is that likely to cause an automatic fail, or is there enough to allow it to receive decent consideration? I'm also concerned about redundancy, as some of the information deserved mention in a couple different sections, and while a few details are different in each section, others are not. Is it ok, or too much? How should I fix it? What can be removed from where, without leaving gaping holes? Also, have I gone overboard with the inline citations? If I have, how should I fix that without simply removing sources? Is there anything else that seems to be missing, or errors that I've overlooked? I'm busy now so may not be able to make suggested changes immediately, but if I can get a make-it-FA-quality to-do list to work on when I get the chance, that'd be much appreciated. - Bbik ★ 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lazy review by mcginnly 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, Mcginnly | Natter 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I just want to know what I can add to this article and how can I can improve the quality. All comments will be appreciated. Thanks in Advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyangel252 ( talk • contribs)
Here are some comments and y:
That should be enough to get you going, especially the references. SpecialWindler talk 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is difficult to follow for someone who does not already know about the region. Material about geography should be removed from the history section. The article on Alsace_Lorraine might be good inspiration for how to reorganize your article. VisitorTalk 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions on improving its readability, if it needs improvement, would also be appreciated. Or if you feel that this article needs to be improved in any other way. Flyer22 00:25, 5 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 15:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's getting late for me, so this is where I will stop for now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Continued review
Stopping here for a bit. Also, here is my version of a trimmed plot section. All major plot events are still there, I just trimmed out the unnecessary details. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to prepare the article for a GA nomination. I'm not a native English speaker so any comments on the language will be particularly helpful. — Kpalion (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I screwed that up. Forget what I said above. Sometimes I don't know where my head is. And "hoist" is correct, obviously. Sorry, must have been tired. I will pull myself together and give the remainder of the article my very best edit job, which is normally at least adequate. — Milkbreath 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As penance for being such a bonehead, I spent the morning playing with this article in my sandbox trying to arrange the pictures. I think I've got it looking pretty good. I'd like to edit it in over the present page, but I don't want to give anybody a heart attack. Would that be OK? -- Milkbreath 15:41, 6 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 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I have done a lot of work on this article, taken photos, written sections. I have written most of it and would like to see how it is faring towards Featured Article. I know its probably nowhere near close...-- TheJosh 11:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, this article needs a lot of work before it even meets Good Article criteria. The lead needs to meet WP:LEAD criteria; it needs to summarize the article, Right now, it is far too short. The history section needs to be expanded, but mostly needs references. The Geography section needs far more information, i.e. coordinates, town size, neighbouring municipalities, geographical characteristics, etc. All sections of the article need to be improved, both with referencing and length. More images would greatly add to the article. The current infobox image would probably be more appropriate in the "Transportation" section, and a view of a prominent building or cityscape should be obtained if possible. (Images are not a requirement for promotion, but they certainly add to articles). The infrastructure section needs a lot of work as well, particularly with prose. References should be properly formatted using the cite web format. Overall, while this article is certainly not ready for FA-class, it is off to a great start. I would assess this as a Start-class article on its way to a B. To see what is expected of a mid-size city FA-class article, see Grand Forks, North Dakota. Raime 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is clear that the article has had a lot of work done. There are some huge improvements. I'd say this now almost meets B-Class requirements (very close), but not quite. It is also not yet ready for GAC or FAC nomination. TheJosh, I'd say you would want to work towards Good Article status before arriving at FAC, as it seems an appropriate step. However, it still needs some work:
Overall, you have made great improvements. Please feel free to leave me further questions or comments. I will be glad to assist in any article cleanup. Raime 02:15, 19 August 2007 (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 2mm, use 2 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 mm.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TheJosh 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone is welcomed to improve the article. Comments appreciated.
Thank you,
Samantha Lim
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 10:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have so far been the only major contributer to this article about an ancient and destroyed Scottish castle.
I am looking for any comments and suggestions as I have contributed as much as I can find (I have no library access) and think now is the time to tidy up the article. I have been looking at this article from some time so it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it.
I will not have access to the internet until Monday but will reply to any suggestions after then weekend. thanks in advance, Bobbacon 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope this is helpful (it's meant to be!). Good luck with the article. Cheers. 4u1e 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for any comments available to improve this article. However it would probably help the most with concentrations on headings and writing style, plus suggestions for improvements to citations. The359 06:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I need to know whether or not the picure is ok, and what other information people think would improve the article. Toepoke 13:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while now. The article achieved GA status on July 31, 2007, but has since been greatly expanded and given more references, images, and information. I am hoping to get it to FA-Status. Any comments and suggestions would be great, and I will do my best to respond to each one immediately. Thanks, Raime 05:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Malinaccier's Review
Really, there aren't too many problems with the article. Just keep editing! •Malinaccier• T/ C 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Some comments:
I am looking to get the Michael Barrett (baseball) article to GA status. I previously attempted, a few months ago, and failed miserably. I have since attended to the reviewers comments, and hope to get some feedback and suggestions. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wouldn't the Career statistics be easier to follow if they were shown by season. Buc 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi I just followed the to-do list given to me by a fellow Pinoy Wikipedian. We managed to fix all but one citation (we didn't go through the DENR people though) and I think the spelling is ok.
These is what the article needs:
Comments: Is it GA worthy?
Contributions: Images, we only managed to get two free images
-- Lenticel ( talk) 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider adding more
links to the article; per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and
Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
[?]
I think all of these were addressed -- Lenticel ( talk) 10:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
*Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0 centimeters, use 0 centimeters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0 centimeters.
[?]
Fixed by Shrumster-- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
[?] Specifically, an example is 13.5 cm.
did not find any abbreviated units -- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*Per
Wikipedia:Context and
Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link
January 15,
2006.
[?]
adressed -- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*There are a few occurrences of
weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either
American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), gray (A) (British: grey).
Made all words set to American spelling -- Lenticel ( talk) 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This GA article has been substantially expanded taking into account comments made on the project's A-class assessment page. I would like to receive wider input to push it on its way to becoming an FAC. Thanks. → AA ( talk) — 16:49, 30 August 2007 (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 100 feet, use 100 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 feet.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, → AA ( talk) — 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent quite a bit of time working towards GA for this, and think that it could reach FA with a little bit of help. Any advice, especially specific advice, is very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Neranei (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)