Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2005

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

---

Blaise Pascal

I am interested in eventually placing this article on FAC. It feels fairly comprehensive at this point, but I am looking to improve it in any way possible. Thank you in advance for your help. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:43, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

The article looks really good, you may want to include {{Infobox Biography}} in the lead, like that on William Butler Yeats and many other featured biographies. Does the article need a legacy section like many other biographies have describing his impact on other people in his field and on society more generally?--nixie 04:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Added the infobox (good idea), will put together a legacy section later today -- should be no problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:25, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

It looks good, and seems to meet most FA criteria. The last works and death section seems a bit too short, and could use more content. I also question the need for the stamp image. It is an unfree image that contains the exact same portrait that is in the introduction. If another image is needed there are other contemporary portraits that are in the public domain. - SimonP 13:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the stamp image with another image of Pascal, though I'm unable to provide more caption information than is available at Commons. I've also expanded the death section with more info on speculation about what exactly his illness was. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:25, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

Tasmanian Devil

This is an article on a neat Australian critter that I've been working on, trying to keep it simple but informative. Please point out anywhere you can see the potential for expansion or any glaring errors.--nixie 22:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Overall, a well written article. I made a few minor edits here and there where I saw fit. Nothing drastic. I did want to point out that there is a discrepancy between when it went extinct on the main land. In the intro, the article says the T.D. went extinct in the 1100's. The first paragraph of the Conservation section says that they went extinct on the main land in the 1400's. Which is it. Also, the lifespan of the T.D. should probally be placed in some other section of the article. It doesn't seem to flow to me where it is currently located in the reproduction section. It seems like it is tacted on as a random fact. Keep up the good work. --ZeWrestler 13:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice catch on the dates, I've fixed them and the oddering. Thanks.--nixie 00:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Overall an informative article. However, on cursory examination I found several grammatical errors. For example, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a run on sentence and, to a lesser degree, ends in a preposition; three sentences in the "Reproduction" section are also run on sentences. Several units of measure need a space between them and their respective values. I'll try to address these issues latter this evening if someone doesn't beat me to it. —Wayward 02:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Could a picture of a mother holding her babies in her pouch be placed in the reproduction section? --ZeWrestler 11:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The babies don't poke out of the pouch like Kangaroo joeys Image:Kangaroo au.jpeg, when they're big enough to leave they do, kangaroos are actually the only marsupials that keep young big enough to be independent in the pouch. The pouch opens to the back so the mother can't interact with the young while they are in the pouch. Also I don't think a mother devil would let a photographer get anywhere near her pouch :), there are no photos free or unfree online to suggest otherwise. --nixie 12:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What about a mother and her babies in general. Any pictures of that in existance. if not, maybe a baby T.D. --ZeWrestler 12:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Not with compatible copyrights. My local zoo is setting up a breeding program so I might be able to get some pics sometime in the future (probably early next year). I was thinking about making a diagram showing the timing of development in the pouch to put in that section since you mentioned that it needed a picture.--nixie 23:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
        • That would work well too. --ZeWrestler 23:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• The first 2 sentances in the Cultural impact seem somewhat repetitive. can it be reworded somehow? --ZeWrestler 15:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The development diagram is up, and the cultural impacts section has been quite substantially rewritten and expanded.--nixie 13:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The development diagram looks great. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Cultural impact section looks great too. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Jet Database Engine

This is reasonably thorough. What else should I cover? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Since Jet is discontinued (I thought it was still alive.. I guess I need to pay more attention to stuff *smiles*), perhaps some information on how it differed from the current engine and other DB-engines from other companies?

References in the article, as opposed to the talk-page.. but I know you know that *smiles*

Perhaps the differences between the various generation of Jet and other DB-engines could be set up as a table, making it easier to grasp for someone like me?

Pictures are always good.. I like pictures. Not entirely sure if there is any picture that can illustrate an article about a DB-engine thought.

Otherwise, good job. A reasonable easy read, espesially when one consider the subject. WegianWarrior 07:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think there is actually any pictures that can describe the Jet engine... will have a look around though. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a very technical sounding article that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as a layperson. For someone who doesn't understand the terminology it seems just like a lot of jargon. For example: Jet 2.0 was released as several dynamic linked libraries (DLLs) that were utilised by application software, such as Access. The three dlls that comprised Jet 2.0 were the Jet DLL, the Data Access Objects (DAO) DLL and several external ISAM DLLs. I can't tell from that sentence why any of that is significant. This article is also a little short, so maybe it could be expanded by explaining the architecture in more detail and plain language. Cheers --malathion ^talk 05:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I have expanded this somewhat. I'm not sure what else to add to the article, however. Any more information should be added to the DAO article, and we have an ISAM article already. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rum

I have performed a general overhaul of this article since its previous peer review. I would like a couple other eyes to take a look before I submit it to FAC. --Allen3 ^talk 02:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, and it's an enjoyable read. The page is a little bare-bones with regard to images and there's a few tiny grammar issues, but nothing significant. Thanks. — RJH 02:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have managed to track down a couple of images, so the article isn't as bear. As my background is in engineering, I am glad to hear that the grammar problems are minor also. --Allen3 ^talk June 28, 2005 13:05 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this from researching the history of rum years ago; maybe you can find a historical reference and add it to the artice....

Cuban rum was originally a fairly low quality spirit. The Spanish government offered a large cash prize to anyone who could make a major improvement in the product (not unlike the Ansari X Prize). The guy who started Bacardi was the producer who ended up winning this prize. I can't remember what his innovation was, but apparently, the result was modern rum. ike9898 June 28, 2005 13:40 (UTC)

• I noticed that text in the earlier versions of the article, but have been unable to find a source to confirm the event. One thing I did find was that shortly after Bacardi developed his new recipe, the heir to the Spanish throne took ill and after sampling some of Bacardi's rum recovered from his fever. As a result of this the new rum received authorization to utilize the Royal Arms of Spain on their labels (from the Cooper book, p. 58). As this story deals with only one specific brand of rum I did not feel it was appropriate for an article on rum in general. There is a section on the development of modern light rum, which is the primary result of Bacardi's innovations. --Allen3 ^talk June 28, 2005 13:54 (UTC)

I finally found the reference to the Spanish prize and I included it in the article. ike9898 July 2, 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Algerian Civil War

I'm not really targeting this for FAC yet, since the serious dearth of pictures is unlikely to be solved for some time, but I've pretty much written it all myself, and I think I'm too close to it to see how it reads to others. So I'd love to get some input on what needs doing and whether it's readable. - Mustafaa 23:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The article is very well written and I found it easy to read through. A couple of things to consider before taking it to FAC would be expansion of the lead section up to three paragraphs, for example from the current lead its not clear that this is an ongoing conflict, the lead should be a good summary of the rest of the article. Consistent use of an inline refernce system would be good idea, especially where you have quoted specific numbers and quotes, some already have intext references, but others like the bombing of the Algiers airport claimed 9 lives and injured 128 people don't, you should move the existing in text refernces to a list and add refs for the missing ones, I suggest using Footnote 3 or Footnote 4. As far as images go it would be nice to see some more, you could probably claim fair use for Presidential images and so on depending on where you get them from--nixie 01:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, these are good points. I've started footnoting it now, and I'll try expanding the lead shortly. - Mustafaa 20:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl champions

Once again, my hope is that this peer review is preparation for its featured list candidacy. I just improved the list that was on the Super Bowl page and put it on a new page. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 30 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

I would recommend a longer lead (particularly explaining what a Super Bowl is and what's the difference between the first four and the rest). And it needs references and external links. This'll be a good counter to those cricket lists! --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll extend the lead and add references/external links. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 1 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

And I'm not sure I like the future Super Bowls, since it adds blank spaces to the table. Perhaps just a note at the bottom as to the future locations (since the table should really be about champions, not locations.) Another problem is the images. Having them lined up to one side isn't too visually appealing, though I can't really think of a better placement. Also, I'm not sure saying the Patriots are the "first dynasty of this century" makes sense begining in 2002. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

I had the images lined up along the side to create a kind of timeline. I'll think about removing the future Super Bowls from the list. Yea, I guess the quote about the Patriots is POV. Phoenix2 Canada Day! 1 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Good work! This is a great list and I hope it makes the featured lists. I made some minor formatting changes that I think improved it. Cedars 2 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm also working on lists for the AFC and NFC Championship Games. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 17:56, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

History of the automobile

This article was a COTW nominee and an editor took the initiative to expand the article, thus disqualifying it from COTW. I believe this could be a featured article, therefore I'm nominating it for Peer Review. —ℬastique▼^talk 16:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is great work, but it still needs some changes to be a FA candidate. It needs references and a longer lead, the lead should also lose the list and table. In terms of content the main problem is that it focuses too much on the cars themselves. There is very little on the automobile's effect on society. - SimonP 15:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead for what lead should be: expand and move the list and table template somwhere into mainbody. Expand short sections and rewrite so they have fewer bullets ('Vintage era' and 'Pre-War era' are definetly stub-sections, although as they have subarticle try expanding from it). References are a must. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have some patient work on the Harry J Lawson my Great Great Grandfather who founded the Daimlar Motor Company the first Britsh Production Motor Car. But how to enter into a timeline.. http://watchinmewatchinu.blogspot.com/2003_05_18_watchinmewatchinu_archive.html

Edwards Air Force Base

I've been working on this article with the hopes of it becoming my first FAC. There's a minor todo list on the talk page, but I'd like input on any other aspects of the article that people think could be improved.

-Lommer | ^talk 20:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious after reading the article about what life is like for all those people living on the base, is there any more information around about general life on the base, schools, what they do for entertainment etc? --nixie 13:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah good call, I'll start a section on civilian or off-duty life at the base. -Lommer | ^talk 00:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I kinda speed-read through the article, but I didn't see anything pertaining to BRAC 2005. The page has an "mili-BRAC" templete link, so I would include an explanation for it. TomStar81 05:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Day Tripper

I'm interested in seeing well done articles on individual songs by The Beatles and here's one that I've contributed. Naturally, help in improving the quality of currently submitted articles, in particular, this one, would be much appreciated.

Request submitted by The Naturals at 01:43, Jun 17, 2005.

Article could use a bunch more cross-links. People born after the 80s might not know what a "hippie" is, for example. Other terms that could be linked: LSD, ferryboat, guitar, lyric, London, prick teaser, twelve-bar in E, &c. Thanks. — RJH 15:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Arguello

I would appreciate anybody who could take the time to offer their input on this article, whether for vain flattery, or simply because he's an interesting character that deserves not to be forgotten by history. Sherurcij 07:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• The lead section is too small and doesn't adequately summarize the article. The "credit" section should be called "References" with the book reference (I assume) formatted properly - is that the only one? (Wikipedia:Cite your sources). Can you find some external links for further reading? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Awards and decorations of Belarus

Well, after hours of work and drawing, I believe this article is almost ready. I am not trying to get it featured, but I just mainly want to see if translations are right. I also seem to have a problem with the footnotes, so if folks want to fix that, they are welcome to. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Very good effort to make this article. Perhaps make a note of whether these awards are military-only. Is the Hero of Belarus an award that anyone can receive (note: this is explained on the award's page, but could be added to this article), and also explain where a soldier wears these ribbons (is it like an American with ribbons on their blazer) and whether citizens who receive these awards can wear them anywhere. Harro5 05:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can do that, but I just need time to do it. Well, if there were many awards, like the Soviet article, I could fork it to Civilian and Military orders, but they are few decorations. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • IIRC, civilians wore the ribbons on the left side of their jacket, just like a military uniform. I need to check official rules, but I do not have the Belarusian font on this laptop. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elias Ashmole

I've been working on this for the last couple weeks, and finally got it posted. I guess I'm thinking about eventually proposing it for FA. Mostly, I want to make sure that there are no serious lapses, and that the level of detail is appopriate. (A note about the picture: there are much better pictures out there, but this is the best one I've found with reliable and complete source info.) PRiis 22:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I have done a light copyedit and added links (many unfortunately red - Garter King-of-Arms, for goodness sake - but there we go). An image of the Ashmolean may be a good idea. Otherwise, looks ready for FAC to me. -- 14:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for going through it. Yeah, a lot of red, but hopefully they won't stay red for too long. I'll look for a good Ashmolean pic. PRiis 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My web searches haven't turned up anything suitable, so I've put in a request at WP:RP. PRiis 04:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's truly a pleasure to see the PRiis Model Featured Article Workshop under steam again! Hi, Pete, the Ashmole article's looking very good, but I think you'll get asked for greater detail on WP:FAC. Especially for a fuller Lead, and more detail in the first paragraphs. I understand the principle that he did more important things later in life, but I still think the first paragraphs are unnecessarily bald. If there isn't more info available, I'd still quite like more explanation. Take the paragraph "Ashmole was a firmly committed royalist..." It's more interesting to be told what that meant--to be reminded of who he was committed to--than to have to click on the royalist link (and be sent to a disambig page, yet). If it was me, I would also explain what being King's Commissioner of Excise entailed and what it says about his position, his loyalties, his status, his income (except that I wouldn't know ;-)). And what kind of a military post, through whose influence? Do you know how he "became associated" with Brasenose College, it sounds a little vague? Was there a political reason he left Oxford in 1645? Stuff like that.

Generally, I feel that the text relies a little heavily on having the reader click on wikilinks. Take the Philosopher's Stone. Of course that should be a link, for the reader who wants a full account and explanation of the concept; but I think there should also be an explanatory sentence around the link, for the reader who just wants to read this text--a quite honorable wish, which also needs to be catered for. The alchemy paragraph is very interesting! It raises some questions: it sounds almost provocatively exotic that an "annotated compilation of alchemical poems in English" would be an important alchemical work. How was it his most important work, exactly..? Oh, and a detail: the last sentence bothers me a little. How do you mean, "Though"? Why would the factors mentioned make him more likely to carry out experiments (as "operations" should perhaps be translated)? From your chronology, I get the impression that he abandoned alchemy before the rage for experiments--I'm a bit hazy on this, but wasn't it fairly common before the Restoration to construct oneself as an alchemist through reading books, rather than by getting down and dirty in the lab? Perhaps that's my prejudice (successfully floated down the centuries on a wave of Royal Society propaganda).

I love the final sentence, but the final paragraph is a little abrupt otherwise, with a lot of same-y sentence structure. Also POV: "He was an ambitious man with a strong will", etc. Your references look fine, but I should warn you that FAC has become a lot more concerned with inline references since your last FA: you'll certainly be asked to ascribe every dot of the opinions in the last paragraph to a particular source. (In fact this may come in the form of a request for footnotes, but don't believe anybody who tells you it's obligatory to give the information in that form--it isn't.)

I don't quite understand what the problem is about the image. Of course you've seen this lovely baby (scroll down). MQ Magazine, which is one of your sources, claims that it's from the National Portrait Gallery, in other words that it's the same (obviously cropped) as this mean little scan which the NPG provides, according to their custom. Which part of the info do you consider inadequate? It's a little weird that the NPG says in one place that John Riley is the artist and in another that it's "after" Riley, admittedly, but if I were you I'd just quote the contradiction on the image description page and go ahead and use it. Unless there's some further problem that I'm missing? Best wishes, and again, lovely to see you back! Bishonen | talk 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All righty! Thank you for going into that kind of detail--it's nice to get this kind of reading, and I know it's not always easy to put your finger on just what's needed (but you do it so well!). I'm pretty clear on the work needed on the lead, detail on the early years, making things more explicit and not relying too much on links. So I'll get to work on that and the lots of other points. (I won't go through them one-by-one, but I've printed them out as a roadmap.)

I did notice that in-line citations seem to be a bigger deal now on the FA page. Do you think the assertions in the last paragraph are the only kinds of things that would need in-line citations? Are they expected for non-controversial biographical facts?

About the picture. Most of the other pictures out there didn't have any real source info at all. I do love that picture from the MQ magazine. I thought about it--I guess the fact that it's from the NPG is what makes me nervous. I know that these should all be public domain because of Bridgeman, but I worry that the NPG might be more likely to raise a fuss than some random .edu page (where I'm sure nobody cares)--especially because they already have a system for charging exorbitant prices for the use of "their" scans on the web. Anway, I'm pretty sure that one is "after Riley" rather than Riley. If you' think it's OK, I'd love to use the Big Face!

Thanks again for spending this kind of time, and I'll report back! PRiis 03:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Big Face: pish. It's we who should be raising the fuss, about the misleading copyright claims the NPG and other museums make on their sites to try to intimidate people. Anyway, Wikipedia is crammed full of two-dimensional representations of these 100 year-olds, we have a template, {{PD-art}}, specially for the purpose of claiming them to be public domain, and I've never heard of any of the wiki image copyright cops having thoughts of questioning or deleting them. So, if it should turn out we're wrong about Bridgeman, Wikipedia is going to be in so much trouble that one more or less isn't going to matter. :P

About inline citations for the rest: well, on a common sense principle exclusively, by no means to clutter up the text like it was a research paper. Actually I think a little discussion of the sources as such wouldn't hurt any, and that could perhaps be made to conveniently stand in for specific inline refs—you know, the "this account is based on blabla unless otherwise indicated" kind of thing. Has Hunter updated Garnett significantly? Are there reliability issues? You could tuck anything like that out of the way as annotations in the reference section, or put it up front the way it is in John Vanbrugh ("Early life section"), or whatever would be more convenient. I suppose the final paragraph is in fact based on Garnett? If your formulations in that paragraph are very close to his—I sort of get an impression they might be—if you're pseudo-quoting him, you might want to think about having more of the quoting actual and acknowledged. I don't have access to the DNB (curses! workplace too mean to subscribe to it!) to take a look for myself, unfortunately. Please let me know if I'm not making sense here! I look forward to seeing this on FAC. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, now that that ndash thing is all straightened out, I think I'm ready. Has everything been addressed? PRiis 1 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

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. --Boricuaeddie 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Originalism

This article on the judicial philosophy of Originalism has been expanding along with my understanding of originalism, but some outside input would be helpful.Simon Dodd 22:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems like the article could do with some more historical context, especially the development of originalism as a response to the development of more liberal methods of interpretation, specifically the idea of the living constitution. This is probably the most important context for the topic in today's discourse so it could use a deeper look. One way to address this would be to expand the "differentiated from strict constructionism" (which in any event seems to have an odd priority of place, before the different varieties of originalism are discussed) to also include comparisons to the other major forms of interpretation. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:32, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Adalgisa Nery

This mid-20th century Brazilian poet and politician is little-known even in Brazil, but she intrigues me. When I was doing graduate work in Latin American Studies, my focus was the public and private roles of female relatives of the Brazilian political elite from 1930 to 1964. Adalgisa Nery was one of the few female relatives of an elite Brazilian politician of her generation to be elected to political office in her own right. Also, her combination of a literary and political career fascinates me. However, I wonder whether Nery is too obscure to have a Wikipedia entry that is longer than a stub, especially considering that both of her husbands (the artist Ismael Nery and the politician Lourival Fontes) do not yet have Wikipedia entries of their own (apparently not even in the Portuguese Wikipédia).

Diamantina 04:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• If there's enough information on her to make her longer than a stub, by all means do it. Her writing and political work make her notable enough for a feature article. If you're looking at getting this to that quality, I have three suggestions: 1) get a picture, 2) expand the article (perhaps including how her writings were relevant/influential, specific actions in politics, etc.) and also consider 3) writing quick stubs for the red-links, which are a little distracting. Best wishes. --Scimitar 15:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Scimitar. I've found a link to a reproduction of Diego Rivera's portrait of Adalgisa Nery, but it seems to be under copyright and thus not available for Wikipedia. Another page has a couple of Ismael Nery's portraits of Adalgisa.

Here are JPEGs of various portraits of Adalgisa Nery: paintings by Ismael Nery and Diego Rivera and a circa 1940s photo. Which do you think would be most suitable for the article?

Relevance/influence of Nery's writings? Specific actions in politics? OK. Let me do more research and get back to you on that. Might take me a few weeks, however. The Callado biography (my main source for the Nery article) does not delve much into literary criticism, and even less about Nery's specific actions in politics. (Callado does mention that Nery felt more comfortable in legislative committees than speaking on the legislature floor, and describes Nery's disdain for the coup of 1964 as evidenced in her newspaper column.) Callado's intention seems to have been a brief (less than 150 pp.) biographical portrait that would rescue an unjustly neglected figure from obscurity, etc. (Ana Arruda Callado, the widow of novelist Antonio Callado — oops, he's a red-link too! — might have also perceived biographical parallels between her and Nery.)

And many many thanks for writing the Ismael Nery stub, Scimitar. I have the Dicionário Histórico-Biográfico Brasileiro pós-1930 (excellent reference on Brazilian politicians) and should be able to whip up a 2-4 paragraph Lourival Fontes stub in the next few days, God willing.

Diamantina 10:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm glad I could help, though the stub would have been easier to write if I wasn't limited to English sources:). I think the phot is probably best for the article, if there aren't any copyright issues (I'm afraid that isn't my area of expertise). Also, since Ismael died in '34, his paintings should all be available for use, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to include one or two of them. (Possibly even in his stub?)

Anyways, anything else that you think is relevent from the Callado biography could be added as well. Best wishes. --Scimitar 15:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: TNG episodes

Please note that the criteria for a featured list is WP:FL and not WP:FA.

This is probably the best example of an episode list on WP. The page only requires one more image to be complete, otherwise there's 175 images (one per episode) for 176 episode overviews. Cburnett 15:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have long admired the formatting of this list, and feel that every other list of TV episodes should follow it. My only problem is that the rainbow TOC box is kind of ugly and not very useful. - SimonP 15:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow box is pretty, but not very useful. Other then that, impressive. I would love to hear FAC objections to it other then 'it's a list' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know it's a subtle point, but each color corresponds to the color on the DVD box (season 1 = red; season 2 = orange; yada yada). I guess maybe a semi-die-hard trekkie, like me, would catch that. :) I suppose to most, it would look like a promotion of LGBT with the irony that there are no gay characters in Star Trek. heh Cburnett 03:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, one objection I could forsee is the fact that there are a fair amount of red links since most episodes do not have their own article yet. I myself have mixed feelings on the impact this should have: I wouldn't want to say this is the best WP can do by having dozens upon dozens of red links but at the same time it's not the episodes themselves up for FL... Cburnett 03:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My comment regarding the table of contents still remains unanswered :) Marky1981 6 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

I would like to see a little more description of the series in the lead similar to Star Trek: The Next Generation just to give the reader a bit more context. --nixie 02:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions? I wouldn't want to duplicate what's found on Star Trek: The Next Generation and am not really sure what to say about ST:TNG that's not in its respective article. Cburnett 03:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing much about Star Trek, it's hard to say, perhaps something like the amazon review mentioning a the themes, key actors, important episodes, production values that makes this series different from the others, up to about 3 paragraphs--nixie 10:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful, but what about writers/directors? Juppiter 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Within the table I assume? That might make it a bit crowded. Perhaps a separate table since I'm assuming they're generally the same through out the series or seasons. Cburnett 23:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Knots Landing

I submitted a previous peer review request for this article where I was advised to add more paragraph breaks. Then I went FAC and they said it wasn't wikified so I took care of that. What else, in your valued opinion, needs to be done, my fellow Wikipedians? Juppiter 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see...

• No discussion of critical reception, TV ratings, or potential stylistic evolution through the series.
• For something that went through 14 seasons, I think most main characters can go for articles of their owns. After all, many single-season Anime characters have articles.
• More use of Wikipedia:Summary style (for example, by splitting off individual seasons and summarizing the entire plot to a single section)
• Sources are badly organized, and would be better put as footnotes.
• Images at the end of a previous section is poor layout.
• The "who lived where" section sounds like cruft, at least cut off the subsections (a table would probably fit the bill well)

At first sight, all of these definitely needs solving before the article has a chance for FAC status. Circeus 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• To help get to featured status:
  • convert those external links in the body (see "Behind the scenes" section) into footnotes with the ext. link at the bottom of the page,
  • format the "Sources" according to Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style,
  • Condense the season summaries (fourteen is a lot to wade through) using more concise and factual language,
  • merge the "Trivia" section into the article (trivia sections are often objected to as not being brilliant prose and that the section is redundant - either the info is trivial and should not be included or it is not trivial and should be discussed in the article),
    • for example "Gary went to get charcoal for the fire, when another car pulled up. To his surprise, Abby got out of it! She informed Mack, Karen, Gary, and Valene that she’d bought Claudia’s house"
      • do not use contractions in article writing
      • go for more of a synopsis rather than a story-like description.
• ---maclean25 09:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Party (UK)

For an article about a major political party in the UK this is truly a dreadful article. Any ideas? JuntungWu 13:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Please read the introduction to this page. There are other pages dedicated to addressing what are considered poor-quality articles. — RJH 16:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know there are lots of other channels but I think those are inappropriate. --JuntungWu 05:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's been said before, but it seems to me (who doesn't know that much about the contemporary Conservative Party) that really it's not that bad of an article but it does have real problems, and those problems are largely structural. Since you're getting an overview in the lead paragraph, I'd think it might make more sense to start with the historical sections, then move into the present (I believe that having some historical understanding helps make more sense of the present situation), and then you could have the policy discussion and the sleaze. The bunch of lists at the end are probably inevitable in these sorts of articles, and just leaving them is probably best. Just one opinion. PRiis 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

10th millennium BC

Peer review request added by MPF on basis that a large number of additions by User:65.82.31.49 are very improbable (the four worst examples removed and listed at Talk:10th millennium BC) - MPF 15:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could definetly use references. Lead and overview section would be nice as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; unfortunately I don't know much about the subject, just enough to be very suspicious of some of the stuff that had been added. It meeds someone who knows the subject to go over and edit heavily. - MPF 17:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the one that left all that information, and since then I have built more into it which I just keep for myself as a hobby. Basically my criteria for this information. Is that I search all search engines for keywords related to keywords I find most commonly in sy searches, then keep refining the search to see where it leads me. If I find an item multiple times, it makes it to my database, and then I search off that database of keywords...... Is it flawed, probably, it it interesting, yep, does it challenge, most definately....

Now to me, what is most interesting, what you left in... or what you took out... I am thinking what you took at is most interesting... Have great day and thanks for peer review.... I have tons more pre 10000BC, post 80000BC if you ever want to see it, let me know here, give me a link on where to post it...

Italian Renaissance

This page is partially the work of the week Renaissance was the COTW. I have recently been working on the history sections and Antandrus just did some great work on the music section. I now feel this page is quite good coverage of an important subject and I am wondering what is needed to get it up to featured status. This is a massive topic and the page is up to 35kb while many section are somewhat lacking in detail, especially in the culture section. There are, however, quite a few sub-articles that give more in-depth coverage of these areas. It would be great if someone who knows their art history could look through the later half and search for any glaring omissions. - SimonP 00:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Right now, I can say I'd like some external links and a picture in the lead (even if it's just one moved up). Still reading through it, but I was expecting a citicisms section. The first sentence says it was a period of great change, but I'm sure I've heard Zinn-ite historians saying something like the peasant experienced no real change at all. Perhaps this could just be in some kind of subsection about the overall effects on society. Just thoughts, and I'll read it now. --Dmcdevit 01:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The main Renaissance page has a fairly extensive historiography section, much of which is devoted to criticisms. I shall try to add a summary on this page. Links are also good idea, but I'm not sure about a picture in the lead. Templates and images tend not to mix. - SimonP 02:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • How about an image in the template like {{Crusade}}? {{History of Spain}} is set up to take differnt images on different pages which is neat--nixie 04:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That is a good idea. I have added a small image to the template. - SimonP 12:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

In response to positive comments from a vote for deletion attempt, I think this article is ready to move towards featured article candidacy. I think that this article is, as one editor put it, "proof that a community-edited article can work even when the subject is controversial". However, the article is very large, so some problems may have been overlooked. Note that to save space many ancillary and background debates have been only briefly noted and readers are referred to related articles in-line. I do not believe this topic is amenable to an article split; this would likely compromise NPOV. --Rikurzhen 06:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• To my uneducated eyes this is a decent article, but it seems to be lacking in some areas. The first thing I see is that it is much too focused on the on the United States. There is a brief "IQ gaps in other nations" section and some other international citations elsewhere, but all of them seem to be included for the light they can shed on the situation in the States. Secondly the page is almost wholly on the modern scholarly debate. I would like to see some of the earlier history of the issue. Thinkers as far back as Montesquieu have pondered this question and it certainly played a role in the eugenics movement and in the institutional racism of many governments. While this early scholarship is today universally rejected some mention of it would be useful because it did often had a major impact. - SimonP 19:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Unfortunately, the emphasis on the U.S. is a reflection of the available research. It's difficult to find data on other countries. A history section is a good idea. --Rikurzhen 22:25, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • This kind of research (contemporary)is pretty restiricted to American institutions, although critics of it come from further afield. I agree that it the historical context and research should also be discussed. The reference list is a tad ridiculous, only list the sources you used to write the article, general bibliographiesa aren't really useful to the reader.--nixie 00:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll screen out orphan references. --Rikurzhen 01:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • History section added. --Rikurzhen 19:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Well the topic is of interest, but that opening graph is just plain offensive, at least to me. Both scientifically and ethically, not to mention that it's always the first thing you see when you open the page. Sorry, but I'm highly sceptical of results like that. Was the graph data generated using orphan twins testing that compensated for cultural and economic factors? Was it only from data collected in the U.S.? I think the graph should be moved further down the page and accompanied by appropriate details on how the data was derived. Thanks. :-) — RJH 16:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the data in the graph is the least controversial aspect of the article. That is, this article is so controversial that there's no where to hide it. The data is representative of scores from hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S., tested over the last 90 years. In the end, this is an article about a research topic where the public is very underinformed about the current state of research, and so for many the things in the article will be very surprising. However, I think we need to keep criticism/skepticism to the level found in the research literature, rather than adding in our own. --Rikurzhen 17:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • The caption doesn't suggest that the graph compensates for economic factors; it's a cumulative distribution. It demonstrates the immediate issue that prompts the article -- a correlation of race and intelligence measures. Whether that is caused by cultural biases, socioeconomic differences, etc. is exactly the question the article looks into. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
    • I can see that it has been discussed previously on the talk page, but still: maybe that data should be shown as overlapping bell curves instead. I understand the reasons against it, but (1) non-cumulative distributions are easier to grasp for many people, and (2) it's less offensive. Indeed, the overlapping curves would show very clearly that (a) the article presents data that makes claims about averages, (b) the variance is mainly within groups, and (c) individuals with a certain IQ can be found in each race. Thus we could make these three good, important points graphically, and on the first image. Now, I am a professional mathematician, handle these topics daily, and can read the current graph just fine, but for a general audience overlapping Bell curves might would address some of the comments RJHall voiced above, at least in part. Arbor 07:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I made a mock-up and put it on the talk page. I think it's even harder to understand. --Rikurzhen 07:20, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • RJH, actually one of my own first ideas when I saw the article was to move the second graph to the top. (The one that stratifies by income group.) That seems to be close to what you are suggesting. The problem is that that graph is much more "offensive": it shows you that the average black child of two doctors scores less than the average white trailer park kid. It also is much more POV in that this study is a very (and largely unanswered) challenge to the culture-only hypothesis. Instead, the current first image is extremely solid and remains open to all sorts of interpretations. For example, it is largely compatible with different versions of the culture-only hypothesis. However, I would be vary happy if you kept an eye on this article. If we can avoid offending people in presenting this debate then more people will likely read the article, so for that reason a conciliatory tone is highly desirable. I think the article could improve a lot from your help. Arbor 08:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I wasn't so much suggesting getting rid of the graph as moving it down past the introduction. When your browser is set to a certain size, the graph dominates the entire page. I.e. it's too large. It effectively becomes the introduction. Thanks. — RJH 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks. That's much easier to fix. We're looking at new designs on the talk page. --Rikurzhen 17:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is fixed. --Rikurzhen 03:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Too many short paras, merge. Remove external links from main body, move to notes, link with Wikipedia:Footnotes. Looks good overall. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In progress --Rikurzhen 22:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is simply way too long as-is and is many times the recommended point where articles may be considered too long (going above that requires more and more substantiation that the increased reading time is warranted; the larger the article, the more substantiation that is needed). Much summarizing and spinning off of detail is needed per point 6 of the FA criteria. See also Wikipedia:Summary style. --mav 04:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're up to it, we're debating that on the talk page here. --Rikurzhen 04:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this has been fixed. --Rikurzhen 06:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dogpatch USA

For the archived peer review of this article see Dogpatch USA Peer Review Archive 1
This article is near feature status. Only a few problems with sentence structure, reference, and may be a few italics problems. Hoping it will stay here a week or two and then become featured.--The_stuart 13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A good article, and it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, but there are still some problems. The sentence "a kaleidoscope of characters and events would unexpectedly conspire to transform the pot of gold at the end of the Dogpatch rainbow into a financial roller coaster ride which eventually ended in failure" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The images also need more information. Some like Image:Dogpatch USA.JPG have copyright information at all. Others just have permission to be used in Wikipedia. Permission for use in Wikipedia is not enough. We need explicit permission that an image can be released under the GFDL. More photos of the park itself, rather than just advertisements, would add to the article. Trivia sections are also bad form. The points there should either be merged elsewhere or deleted. - SimonP 13:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted the creator of the image and gotten him to release it into the public domain. I have also changed the lead to reflect a more "encyclopedic" tone. The trivia section, however, is kind of a difficult matter because the facts it lists are important yet don't seem to fit into the article anywhere.--The_stuart 21:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I integrated the trivia section, any other suggestions?--The_stuart 18:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Porgy and Bess

I believe this article to be ready for FA. However, I am more familiar with the subject than most; and would like a layman's opinion on the article, in terms of writing and structure. If nothing is wrong, I will put this up for FA. --Alexs letterbox 10:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. I can't see anything significant that needs fixing. Thanks. — RJH 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am now putting it up for FA, any other comments can go there. --Alexs letterbox 05:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Primate

Looking for general comments. I've been working on various primate articles for awhile now, so I though I'd actively seek soe peer review. - UtherSRG 02:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Are you planning to go to FAC? There are no features article on higher order taxonomy and it would be nice to see some. Some things that I think could be discussed include, some more detail on relatedness to humans, and distribution in very broad terms (a map comparing the distribution of old world vs. new world primates would be informative. In this article there is also an opportunity to have some more indepth discussion of new world vs. old world that probably wouldn't be appropriate in another article. Also you might want to look at using a sysmtem for standard inline cites like Wikipedia:Footnote3 or Wikipedia:Footnote4--nixie 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iron Cross

This has come on quite well in the 7 months since the last peer review and my last edit. What do you think - should I take it to FAC? The usual "inline reference" merchants will have a field day, I suppose: anything else? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Some comments and questions. Overall a good article. I realize that not every point can be address or expanded, some of these topics may be out of scope or require data that simply does not exist. Wendell 19:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for article clarity:

• The Grand Cross was actually instituted in 1813 along with the Iron Cross, this needs to be addressed.
• Suggest article cleary state if this award is only for the Army or could be awarded to Navy / Air force personel? Some WWII examples show the higher classes award to all branches of the Military. Was this always true? Only for higher classes? The article says the 1813, 1870, and 1914 series had a Grand Cross was intended for senior Generals of the German Army which confuses the issue. Also, the article says Iron Cross was also used as the symbol of the German Army
• Can the article clarify the exact criteria to receive the iron cross? Has it changed over time? The WWII section says awarded for bravery in battle as well as other military contributions to a battlefield environment. Does that apply to all the years of its use? The noncombatant version and War Merit Cros also confuse the issue. Could staff officers win the award with excellent planning?
• The lead paragraph discusses no military decoration to honor or bravery has been issued since 1945; which partially addresses the award criteria in a reverse manner.
• Is there signifance to its very simple design, unadorned, and is made from relatively cheap and common materials.'? Strictly as a guess, was that all that was possible in 1813, but it started a tradition?
• Could German non-Prussians receive the award in the 1813, 1870 and 1914 series?
• Any information on how the 1813, 1870 and 1914 series were worn?
• From the article, Following the end of the Second World War, the government of West Germany permitted its military veterans to wear it, although German law prohibits the wearing of an Iron Cross with a swastika. In 1957 the German government issued new Iron Crosses to World War II veterans, altered to display an Oak Leaf Cluster (similar to the Iron Crosses of 1813, 1870 and 1914) in place of the swastika. I gather all WWII Iron Crosses had the swastika , so I assume between 1945 and 1957, no one could wear or display their award. I am missing something?
  • Just a suggestion, I do not know if it would work. Consolidate the discussion and list of famous award holders. This section could also be expanded to counter balance the Hilter and Goering examples, with more typical examples (panzer aces, etc).
• To clarify the statements that apply to all awards of the series, I suggest a Traditions section. This section could contain (if appriopiate):

1. Award criteria requested above
2. Historical connection between German Military and crosses already in the article (Teutonic Knights, Frederick the Great, etc).
3. The section on Entitlements
4. The discussion of Iron Cross as a symbol of the German Army (with some exceptions)
5. The simple design aspect

Potential topics for a Featured Article:

• How were the awardees selected? Nominated by commander? Nominated for a single specific action, or what? Decided by who or what?
• Could it be award posthumously? Was this common?
• In WWII, could SS personal receive the award? What about Waffen-SS ?
• Does any information exist on the number awarded in the 1813 or 1870 series?
• Five million were issued in WWI. What percentage of the Military got one? Was it a common award?
• In WWII, 2.6 million were issued. Why the decrease? I assume WWII had more people in the Military, so the percentage award dropped. Any signifiance?
• Any stats on the number of living recieptants in 1945? How many replacement awards were issued to living veterns in 1957?
• What is the post war tradition of the award?

1. In Germany, is it legal to buy, sell, wear or display the award by someone not the awardee? Are un-official replica's common?
2. There were at least 7 million manufactured for WWI and WWII. Is there a collectors market? In general, did allied soliders treat them as trophies (horrible but sometimes common in war) and bring captured ones back to their homeland?
3. Any common traditions: awardee buried with the medal? passed down from father to son?

Article expansion suggestions:

• The 1813, 1870, and 1914 series had 2 common grades, and the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. The WW2 series had 2 common grades and many advanced grades. Any significance worth discussing (besides vanity)?
• Any year-by-year information exist for the numbers awarded in WWI and WWII? Could any trends be established? Was it more awarded when Germany was winning or on the offensive?
• Any East front vs West front award numbers available (for either WWI or WWII)?
• Any famous (or infamous) units have unusually high percentage awarded?
• I assume the Iron Cross was only issued for the wars specifically listed. What about other colonial actions that might have occurred in the 1880s thru WWI? Why not authorized?

---

Gosh - a lot to think about. Thanks for your excellent feedback. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, seems a bit overkill, all that. If the article becomes that extensive, some of it should be broken into separate articles, no? Guapovia 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

I've done quite a bit of work expanding and massaging this article on a quite interesting person. I think it's a great subject for a FAC, but would like some input on how it reads now. Thanks in advance! · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It looks good. The content itself is fairly comprehensive and well written, but some tweaking is still needed to get the article to FA quality. The most important thing is that the images need to be rearranged. Several are much too large and the ==Later Film Career== section is almost illegible on a lower screen resolution. The sections are also oddly arranged. Her entire career is presented as a subsection of ==Hepburn's acting career begins== and the ==Film== section doesn't give much of a description as a number of other sections are on her film roles. Thirdly to be a FA the lead should really be more than one paragraph. - SimonP 00:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Simon, thanks so much for your comments! I agree with them. I'm not too terribly adept at working with images, but will fool with them a bit this weekend. Thanks again, I hope you won't mind if I ask you to take a look at the changes once they're done. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I also think it looks good. I agree that the photos need to be resized, rearranged etc. Not all have source info, and I think that is essential. There are some minor touches of POV. In the opening - "screen legend" - yes she is of course, but that needs to be conveyed in more neutral language. Also I think singling out "The African Queen" and describing it as perhaps her best known role plus also making a section out of that film, and no other, is also highly POV. It's not that I disagree with the choice, but a fan of "The Philadelphia Story" might want a section on that one, then someone that likes "Bringing Up Baby" might want a section on that one... and where would it end? The article has improved by about a million percent since I last looked at it months and months ago. Congratulations, a bit of tweaking here and there and it'll be ready. Rossrs 15:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! Hmm, yes, I see what you're saying; I'll have to think about how to massage that content. As an aside, I'd also like to stub all the redlinks before I submit it to FAC -- I've done a fair few already, but with so many films (and especially her earlier theater work for which there is less information), there's quite a bit to do. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gas metal arc welding

I'm planning to nominate this for FA status in a few weeks, but wanted to run it through peer review to see if anyone has some suggestions first. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I thought the article was extremely good overall but I have one single nitpick: A related process, flux cored arc welding, employs an hollow electrode wire that is filled with flux on the inside, eliminating the need for shielding gas. This sentence might lead someone to believe that flux-core welding is used only for the purpose of eliminating the need for a shielding gas. However, flux-core encompasses both self-shield and dual-shield processes. The self-shield does not require a shielding gas while the dual-shield uses a flux and gas together resulting in strong heat input to the weld. Otherwise I did not find a problem with the article. Keep up the good work =) Triddle 18:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I said "eliminating the need" because in order to do flux-cored, you don't need shielding gas. You can do self-shielded. But I see your point; it's not particularly clear. Plus, FCAW has other advantages and disadvantages aside from the whole shielding gas thing. I think the lead needs a mention of FCAW, since the two are so related, so I'll play around with the wording and see what I can come up with. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Its pretty good, I don't suppose you could add some more images? I would also like to see some circuit diagrams. Some minor niggles with the units: 1) Get rid of those full-stops after units. 2) use a non breaking space (&.n.b.s.p.;) between a number and its unit. Its part of the WP:MoS. I've done one for you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that english units get periods and metric units don't, but eh, whatever WP:MoS says :). The images thing is in progress... I'm planning to (attempt to) draw up a detailed "point of weld" diagram similar to the one found at the top of this page, and User:TTLightningRod is working on getting a good picture of someone actually doing GMAW. I might also send out an email to a major US welding company to see if they'd like to GFDL any images, but I'm not optimistic. If worst comes to worst we can add the lead image from welding, which is a picture of GMAW but isn't clear at all, since the arc flash blocks the view of the welding gun. Oh, and what do you mean by circuit diagrams? Do you mean a overall view of the system, with how the power supply and shielding gas tanks connect to the welding gun, or a close-up image like the one at that external website I mentioned? Thanks for the comments. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I know, getting images are a pain. :| Hope you get lucky. Yeah, a ckt diagram on something on the overall system. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Inspector Gadget

I've dont alot of work on this article and think that it may could be featured will a little more clean up and possibley some more information.--The_stuart 23:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ideas for improvement:

• Lengthen the lead (probably two good sized paragraphs would be sufficient - include more info on the main characters and the background of the show)
• More development in the background information would be helpful. For example, justify "After the first season the show was a worldwide hit" with what people said, size of audience, etc.
• Remove exclamations! They don't belong in a good encyclopedia article! Ever! =)
• Nor do rhetorical questions ("but will they make it in time?" in "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas")
• The "Other Incarnations" section needs work -- more info, better flow, and sentences that end (see "Gadget Boy & Heather")

Hopefully this is helpful! --Spangineer (háblame) 16:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, reading that has unearthed some fuzzy memories! It looks like you've taken account of most of Spangineer's comments, which is good. I've a couple more to make but these are based in part on Saturday morning memories of a long time ago so be gentle with me!

• Is it possible (within copyright restrictions) to get a sample of Brain's voice. The description is great, and I think audio would be too. From a DVD or something? I wonder if the original voice is on any released media.
• Didn't his car have various special abilities too? I'm sure I remember it being able grow 'legs' and dodge the traffic that way, as well as being able to float.
• Might be worth explaining what Penny did with her Computer Book.

-Splash 01:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

There's a bit of a muddle on the subject of the article; some of it is about the character, some about the TV show, and the film (which would rightly share the same article title) is barely mentioned. The lead needs to sort this out. The film needs to be mentioned much earlier (that is, in the lead) and in more detail. The list of unresolved questions gets a bit silly; such a list could probably be generated for any show and doesn't add much to our understanding of the subject. Jgm 04:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Krill

Another article on its way to FAC... Written largely by a non-specialist (yours truly), it has been read by one of our resident marine biologists (Kils), who made minor fixes, and by an external specialist (Dr. Jaime Gómez-Gutiérrez), who, although he didn't edit the article himself, has reviewed the article and e-mailed me some corrections and additions which I've incorporated. Jaime also sent me a few nice images, some of which I put in the article. (Some others I've placed in other articles, where they were more appropriate.) Before going to FAC, it might be good to check the article for strange grammar, as most of the contributors are non-native English speakers. How else could the article be improved, keeping in mind that it is about krill in general (all 86 species), not about one particular species?

A note on the reference scheme: numbered references become a maintenance nightmare even using {{Template:Ref}} and {{Template:Note}}. The article uses symbolic references (see Wikipedia:Footnote4); the symbol derivation is based on the one from the alpha.bst of BibTeX. Whatever you do, please keep this referencing scheme, which is also used in the featured article on the Antarctic krill.

Looking forward to your comments! Lupo July 6, 2005 09:20 (UTC)

I'd go with known species instead of just species becuase there's probably quite a few not yet identified; otherwise it's pretty good though the redlinks could do with stubbifying. Dunc|☺ 6 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

That's kind of implicit, isn't it? All our taxonomy is based on current knowledge, and you can never be sure that no additional species is discovered in the future. Hence you'd have to write about "known species" in all our genera/family/etc articles... The red links concern mostly particular species and the names of body parts or larval stages of these critters. From context it is clear what these terms refer to. Of course, I trust my fellow Wikipedians to help fill in the missing articles such that these red links turn blue. :-) Lupo July 6, 2005 12:58 (UTC)

Have fixed a few minor typos but overall it is of a high standard. Not too sure if their is anything more that you could add to this article. The redlinks are not a problem for me as in time they will turn blue. I think this is feature material. I will go it through it a few more times to see if their is anything i've missed and possibly add more constructive critiscm, but at this point it is very good well referrenced article.Yakuzai 7 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Thank you. If you do come up with ways to improve it further, don't hesitate to mention it here or to do it yourself. Lupo 11:32, 8 July, 2005 (UTC)

James Jesus Angleton

Article was revised in late May. Its subject matter is difficult, as Angleton was a member of the CIA, which means that authoritative source materials are not easy to come by. Buffyg 14:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Needs a picture. Also, it seems short for FA consideration, and if you flesh it out you might want to divide the biography into sections. Best Wishes- --Scimitar 14:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing's been said about putting this article forward for FA candidacy. I tend to think that some basic issues about sources need to weighed first. Buffyg 14:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The Angleton and conspiracy theory section needs to be broken up into smaller paragraphs. The second sentence in this section also needs to be broken up into more manageable pieces. And some definition is needed for rat line. What is that? Pburka 12:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strepsirrhini

Looking for general comments. I've been working on various primate articles for awhile now, so I though I'd actively seek soe peer review. - UtherSRG 02:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• It looks good to me, although it's a little on the short side for a featured article. Perhaps there are one or two external links that could be added? I'm not knowledgeable on on the topic of taxonomy or primates to see what else might be missing. Sorry. — RJH 03:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848)

This is an article I put together a while back on a relatively obscure manuscript. I realize that it is shorter than most FAs, but there isn't a great deal of information available beyond what is here, and there really isn't much more that could be said. I think, that at least as far as amount of content, this article is as good as it can be. The organization and presentation, of course, can always be improved. Comments? Dsmdgold 20:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some more information on significance would be nice. Falcon 04:45, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Education in the United States

I have watched this article for several months now and it has grown and improved amazingly. Half of the current article was once POV bullets. It has survived POV crises and I think it can survive them in the future as well, even though it is by nature controversial. However, imput is always appreciated and since I would like to eventually make it a Feautured Article, this is obviously the first step.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

One point I'd like to see explored is the US college admissions system. I know from a bit of knowledge that it is based on a lot more than just grades, where in Australia you need to get a certain score at school to get into certain courses. In the US, you need a certain SAT to get into a college, and then you can study whatever you like (right?). Some info on why this system is used, and why weight is placed on extra-curricualr activity like sport and the Arts. Also, a reference is made in the "History" section to a History of education in the United States article that doesn't exist. Is it being created, or is this just a dead link? Harro5 00:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe we could expand on the admissions tests, but there is no set score on any test required. The point made in the article is that American education is not very standardized, which is why extra curricular activities are important. Colleges want to see students involved outside the classrooms, a positive note in a sea confusion.--naryathegreat | (talk) 22:50, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Previously, colleges and universities placed great emphasis on SAT/ACT scores and high grades for admission; the high school valedictorian was almost guaranteed admission to all but the most selective schools. This "intellectual model" focused on students who offered the strongest academic credentials, often without taking into account the ability of the student to exist in a community. The old stereotype (which in my experience was not particularly inaccurate) portrays intellectual students as eschewing any social-skill enhancing activities (high school clubs, sports, musical ensembles, etc.) in favor of uninterupted study.

However, as colleges and universities have moved towards a more community-centered model, the "well-rounded" student has gained the upper hand. These students may not present overwhealming credentials (straight-A's from all four years of high school and 1500 (out of 1600) SAT scores), but present widespread interest in community projects, sporting events, and other extracurricular activities that indicate that a student is well grounded and able to function within a community. My experience is that universities are more interested in students who possess an adult attitude (demonstrated through broad interests) and the ability to peacefully co-exist with students, faculty, and staff in the university community. -- Essjay · Talk 11:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of things I don't see addressed here. The first is the issue of the long summer vacation in the U.S. schools. I could be wrong, but I believe it's about twice as long as in, say, England. Over 12 years that adds up to nearly the equivalent of a full year of lost schooling. (I think it's related to an old requirement for school children to be able to help out during the harvest season.) Also I believe that U.S. starts education a year later than in England. (I had to skip a year when we moved to the U.S.) So by the time you graduate, you're up to two years behind. Perhaps somebody else could confirm this? — RJH 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll add summer vacation; however, it already states when students begin schooling and I don't see any point comparing this to when students begin in every other country. People can deduce that themselves.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, unfortunately I have to disagree. The point of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to create a puzzle in deductive reasoning. If the summer vacation in the U.S. differs substantially from most other countries, that's a notable element that is specific to that education system. A student in the U.S. is probably unaware of the difference and would likely never check. — RJH 15:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that several things are missing from the "how-far-are-we-behind" mathematics. (Please forgive me, much of this is off the top of my head, from informal discussions with colleagues.)

1. First, some countries have a practice of giving students one afternoon off per week (I seem to remember that France offers Wednesday afternoon off, but I cannot recall the source of that information), which accounts for a significant amount of time over the course of a school year.
2. Some countries have extended lunch times (U.S. children typically have between 20-30 mins for lunch; other countries offer upwards of an hour. I seem to remember a discussion of two hour lunch periods in some country; the idea was for students to go home for lunch.)
3. Also, there are additional public holidays in some countries (most U.S. schools have less than ten public holidays that are celebrated with a day off school (Labor Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day & the following Friday, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Election Day, and one or two "inservice" days for teacher traning). (I seem to remember the French practice of "faire le pont" where if a holiday falls on Tuesday or Thursday, the Monday before or Friday after is taken as a holiday as well; this only occurs in the US with Thanksgiving.)
4. I am not familiar with the length or frequency of term breaks in other countries, but U.S. students typically receive two weeks for Christmas holiday and one week in the spring in addition to the June-August summer vacation (and many schools are moving thier schedules later into June and earlier into August). (Secondary education in France suggests a September to mid-June schedule, a time period that would equate closely to the US system.)
5. I am also not familiar with start/end times in other countries, but my experience has been that most U.S. schools begin between 7:00 and 7:45AM, and end between 2:30 and 3:30 PM; schools that offer breaks between classes usually offer 5-7 mins. If other countries begin later in the morning, or end earlier in the afternoon, or offer longer breaks, this time will add up as well. (Education in Germany suggests an 8:00AM-1:30PM day, easily two hours shorter than the standard US school day, with 5-20 min breaks during the day; that's potentially 14 hours less per week.)

It strikes me that the potential is available for a significant amount of time off from school because of the differing systems; I don't believe the claim that U.S. children receive two years less schooling is accurate. If you factor in days off, afternoons off, different start/end times, extended/additional breaks, double or triple lunch times, etc. there is the possiblity that the systems may be very similar in actual time spent in the classroom. -- Essjay · Talk 11:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I must say that there simply isn't enough reason to ramble on about the summer vacation thing for much space. It is briefly discussed here, but I don't think we need to discuss the comparison to breaks in other countries in any detail (there's currently a sentence) because this article is about Education in the United States. If somebody wanted to write Summer break (education) or the like go ahead, but this article really doesn't seem to be the place.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely that there is no need for an extensive analysis of school breaks, I was simply responding to the request above: "So by the time you graduate, you're up to two years behind. Perhaps somebody else could confirm this?" (emphasis added). -- Essjay · Talk 03:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see inline cites when statistics are quoted, I think its very important that statistics are verifiable. Things that are completely absent include vocational education and adult education (teaching adults literacy and numeracy etc). There is a brief discussion of gifted education but no equivalent section on special education. Where do community colleges fit in in the scheme of things?--nixie 11:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never thought of those before, with the exception of community colleges, which is discussed in the following excerpt:

Some students choose to attend a "community college" for two years prior to further study at a college or university. A community college is run by the local municipality, usually the county. Though rarely handing out actual degrees, community colleges may award an Associate of Arts (AA) degree after two years. Those seeking to continue their education must transfer to a four-year college or university (after applying through the same admission processes as normal freshmen, see articulation). Some community colleges have automatic enrollment agreements with a local four-year college, where the community college provides the first 2 years of study and the four-year university provides the 3rd and 4th year of study, all on one campus. For example, the University of Houston System has partnered with community colleges in neighboring cities to provide bachelor's and master's degrees in cities that are only served by community colleges. The community college awards the associate's degree and the university awards the bachelor's and master's degrees.

As you can see, over 3/4 of the undergraduate study section concern community colleges. I personally think this is enough discussion (I'm actually pretty sure you just missed it). Also, I don't feel that the gifted discussion is brief. As for vocational education, that is a hard topic to cover. And adult education is worth a mention. I added a section over special education, see what you think.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

As nixie suggested, the number one problem with this article is that there are no citations. Statements like "a majority of Americans approve of teaching evolution" should have citations to back up their claims. Without these citations the statements cannot be trusted. The Kurt Cobain article provides a good example of how to do citations. Without citations this article will never become a feature article. Pictures may also benefit the article if it is to obtain feature article status. Cedars 03:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the citations and I added some. Because the Manual of Style identifies numerical and plain links as bad style, they have short reference names. Please look at these and point out locations where others should be added (or you could even add them yourself ;-) --naryathegreat | (talk) 05:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a list of things that I think need clarification and sources to the talk page of the article. I think you can safely remove the terminology section from the article, no one will question your use of American English. For section 7 you can probably remove United States from the section headings since the article is clearly about education in the United States.--nixie 04:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've also added a list. Good work on the article so far. Cedars 08:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The section comparing the merits of public and private secondary schools seems a bit slanted. I removed one claim that was misleading, namely, that most public schools can only afford teachers with bachelor's or associate's degrees. (If that's true, it's even more true of private schools; public school teachers are more likely than private school teachers to have master's degrees.) Other claims in this section need to be either removed or backed up with sources and statistics. For instance, "Most public K-12 schools are moderately underfunded" is a controversial claim. What's the evidence for this? How does average spending per student at public schools compare with average spending per student at private schools? Empiricallyrob 4 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

Transformation problem

On 8 July a new user significantly changed the article. I need someone with economic / political economic knowledge to check the user's assertions re Sraffa and the insolubility of the transformation problem. Some of the language needs to be untangled. Fifelfoo 02:37, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Spamalot

Its just won a bunch of tony awards, and has a nice collaborative wiki page with pics, refs etc. what would need to be done to get it featured? what other info would be important or useful? Niz 19:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• One thing the article is missing is a plot synopsis, what actually happens in the musical- surely its not just a bunch of actors singing Monty Python songs. --nixie 01:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok, "cast" section is no longer just a list of cast, it summaries the plot too. Niz 12:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A few comments:

• I think you need to discommingle the story and cast -- the cast is likely to change (though it makes sense to note the original players), and covering both aspects at once already makes for a convoluted read (and do you think it needs a spoiler warning?)

ok i'll look at separating them. no spoiler warning is necessary as this info can be found even in the programme.

• The headings are a bit misleading: "Premiere" should perhaps be "Development" or some such, and "Reception" sounds like it might refer to the party after the premiere.

ok changed

• The lead could use a bit more description -- perhaps the word "comedy" is appropriate somwhere, and it would make sense to indicate the start date of the Broadway run -- and more sense of why we should care: what makes this show unique? What is its theme and intent? (something along the lines of "like the movie, the musical makes mockery of Arthurian Legends and epic film conventions" (but better) might help).

ok changed

• The phrasing "advanced tickets" seems off to me, but I might be wrong.

can you elaborate? whats wrong with it?

• The list of songs is not encyclopedic and does not add much to the reader's understanding (for the same reasons, simply listing chapter titles for book articles is discouraged). Instead, tell us about the structure of the work; give examples of the way the show uses music and comedy and to what end.

ok will look at it (difficult though as i haven't seen it!)

• If your goal is really Featured Article status, there is a long way to go in terms of detail and comprehensiveness, and you'll have do deal with things like references, critical opinions, etc.

yes FA is a long way away, but all comments are welcome. thanks! Niz 28 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

Jgm 05:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phishing

Previous Peer review: Archive1.

I have submitted this article once for a peer review, and I have decided that I will submit it again before trying to submit it to be a featured article canidate. This article has been cited 3 times by sources outside of wikipedia, and since phishing has become a big issue today, I would like to see this become a featured article. One thing that i mentioned in the talk page is that this article has too many links in the external link section. I think it needs to be cropped, but I am not sure what links should stay or go. Suggestions in that department would be useful as well.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Neat article!

1. One sentence paragraphs --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Many other grammer errors - I tried to do an overhaul of the first early history paragraph as an example Looks good --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
3. There was no references header - fixed
4. The article needs to be a bit longer in general... one idea would maybe to go into the phsycology of it a bit I think its long enough now more or less... delving deeper into the phsycology would be good but at this point its long enough to satisfy a good number of people --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Early History should probably just be History fixed --ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
6. Phishing headers should be named more appropriately, such as "EBay phishing example" or something done --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
7. Split up the first paragraph under early phishing on AOL - its LOOONG, also I don't even think you need a header there, but that's a personal preference More or less dealt with, I believe --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
8. Another idea would be to take screen shots of the fake sites and compare them to the real ones

Anyway, keep it up, its pretty good --RN 23:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Good suggestions. I'm at a LAN party right now. I'll try to start implementing them come monday. If anyone feels like implamenting RN's suggestions, feel free to go ahead. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, i've worked on a few suggestions that you have suggested. I'm going to work on your fake website idea a little later today. In your pychology suggestion, you think mentioning social engineering would be a wise idea? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mentioning social engineering would be a great idea although you're already doing that a bit - in fact its pretty good as is (although you could say something like after years of getting the same email someone may not notice the difference between the mails or something, or after years of not visiting a site like paypal may have thought their account was hacked into while they were away or something etc. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• To expand the article i added a damage caused by phishing section. The seciton needs to be filled in though. I'll work on that part when i get home tonight. I still believe that the article has a few too many links. Can someone take a look at whats there and prune some of the unneeded ones. I've already gone ahead and pruned a couple myself. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Took a quick look today - it's really coming along! You're about 60% of the way to a FA... I'll copyedit et al later this week when I have some free time. Looks great! --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• The caption in the main picture is a bit nondescriptive. See Wikipedia:Captions for writing a good descriptive caption - I would describe how the example image is specifically trying to get people to be phished, or something. Scott Ritchie 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed up the caption per the article you provided. Is this caption better? Any other suggestions? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Here, I redid it using your start as a base. I think it works well now. Scott Ritchie 19:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks good --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• The article is looking good. I've taken the liberty of pruning the links, getting rid of all the software links since they are all on the antiphishing software article, and including an in text link to that article. I got rid of the separate list of examples too since the article already does a good job of showing examples. I added a section on industry response. The damage section is a good idea and the Antiphishing Working Group has data on attempt numbers and so on that could be made into graphs. In general I think the text could be bulked up a bit, the paragraphs are quite short. All the html links in text should be converted to proper notes when the writing is finished. --nixie 10:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Great Work nixie. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Created a chart for the section "Damage Caused by Phising." The section still needs to be filled in. But in the mean time, what do you guys thing of it?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. It might be a good idea to increase the size of the text of the data points and axes, so they can be read without having to go to the image page.--nixie 03:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll look into fixing that tonight when i get home from work. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Do you like it better now? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Notes: nixie brought up the comment of converting the referances to proper notes. I've started to do that here and there, can someone help out with the conversion. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've expanded some of the sections in the article. Can someone proof read them and check that they are worded correctly? Also, some fairuse rationale should be added to the e-mail pictures.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Added fair use rationale. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Someone has suggested that the antiphishing article gets merged into phishing, is there any prospect of doing that?--nixie 04:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I merged the articles and put a redirect on the anti-phishing article. Source 9 in the article is not working correctly with the template. can someone fix it so the title of the article shows up on the page in normal view. Other than that, what else should be worked on for this page? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

nixie left a few suggestions in my talk page for the phishing article. i'm posting them here for all to see.

1. More on identity theft, mabye in the damage section
   • I changed up the paragraph adding more about identity theft --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Whats the damage outside the US [1], I know it's also a problem in Australia but I haven't found anywhere that says how bad it is in Australia
   • Added this to the article. it could still use some work. Any help would be great --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Whats the legal situation outside the US UK, I think you can also be prosecuted in Canada
4. A second paragraph could be added to the lead to briefly discuss damage, legislation and anti-phishing.
   • I started a second lead paragraph. Could someone do some work to it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Other than that, the article is coming alone greatly. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Great job - I finished copyediting and I think at this point it has a good chance to pass FAC - a couple issues with the links though -

1. Maybe trim out a couple of the lesser quality links
2. All of them need a description

Looks great --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've trimmed links and added descriptions. Anything else? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nope - looks good! Go ahead and go for the FAC :) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Radhanite

I initiated this article and several other users helped with the editing. I think it's a decent article with about as much information as is available on the topic. It could use some work with formatting, style etc. Suggestions would be appreciated. --Briangotts 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can see how they may have played an important role in medieval history. Were there any notable figures among the Radhanites for which there is a written record? Did they have major established communities? Is there archeological evidence they left behind? (As it was the dark ages, probably not a lot. But I had to ask. :) Thanks. — RJH 03:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the balance between history and historiography. For an encyclopia, you want to talk about what we know first, and only afterward on how we know it. Also, is ibn Khordadbeh's account the only significant primary source? That's the impression the article gives right now, since it reproduces the entire text and doesn't mention any other sources. Acknowledging other sources of information, textual or archaeological, would be good. Isomorphic 28 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)

By the way, the article is quite interesting. Isomorphic 28 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, RJH and Isomorphic. I will work to incorporate this stuff in the article. --Briangotts 28 June 2005 13:42 (UTC)

Nevada-tan

One of the most important crimes of this century, which spawned a bizarre internet craze... would be a very interesting FA, so what needs to be done? Niz 00:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My Japanese sucks, but I think the link to the Flash animation is dead. You may also want to check current featured articles to get a feel of how references should be formatted (for example the current FAC Buckingham Palace. (References used to write the text should be separated from external links section) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

can you check the flash link again? it wporks for me. make sure you have the latest version of flash player though. Niz 20:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • You may want to direct non-Japanese people towards the right place. I get what I believe to be an error message on a Yahoo! or Google group, but my eastern language knowledge sucks, so I can't read what it all says. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 07:21 (UTC)
    • ok done - included a link to check your flash player version, required version etc. also, as its all in japanese, linked to Prank flash#Red Room which describes in english what happens in the video. Niz 28 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Sybian

Ok folks, I tried to pull off a FAC, but I failed big time. Of the issues that were introduced:

• Copyright OK photos
• Use in porn industry
• Sales figures
• Need for NPOV/Objective commentary
• Impact on society
• More sources
• If I miss a few, you can see the FAC page at top.

I took care of the photos, so only two remain (one is GFDL and the other has been released for us to use with no problems). My pal Leo is taking care of the sales figures and the "made to order" question. I need suggestions on how to solve all of these issues and try to make this article Featured. Also, if you also wish to object to having this page being on the Front Page, make the comments on my talk page or this talk page. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Goodness me, that thing looks intimidating! Other things you may want to include: Similar devices and a comparison; how widespread is its usage outside of the porn industry (some, erm, research on Google showed up a lot of different sites); you make some passing references to the medical pros and cons... have there been an instances of people being hurt by this thing?; a copyedit wouldn't hurt... I did a spelling check and found a number of errors that I fixed. I would love to see this on the front page some day. Zerbey 22:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I had similar devices added it, but I was told it sounded like a promo. I will add it it, but it needs to be cleaned up. I will check up on the medicial issues. I know some porn sites are dedicated to showing women ride the Sybian, and there is a nickname for it and similar devices: "f...ing machines." I cannot really provide links to any porno site, since that is asking for trouble. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Prior Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1

Well it failed an FaC nomination, so I'm doing this again for some dispassionate input from people outside the Ancap/Anarchist POV debate. Saswann 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a well put-together article that maintains a reasonable level of neutrality. The "Anarchism and Capitalism" sub-section gets too much early coverage and should be placed at the end of the "Philosophy" section. (As a reader I want to get the full picture concerning the philosophy before digressing into such nuances.) The large "An anarcho-capitalist model of political ideologies" chart mucks up the next section title when the browser window is too small. :) — RJH 19:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Broke out "Anarchism and Capitalism" into it's own section, and, as the chart followed it, seems to have corrected the other issue Saswann 17:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Saint John, United States Virgin Islands

This is my first article-I have been using Wiki for a long time but this is my first REAL contribution and I was wondering if I could get some feedback and constructive critisism so I can know for the future. Thanks Gpyoung 19:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I just resized the image on the top of the article. On a 800x600 screen it hid the table of contents. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Why don't you take a look at some geography-related Featured articles and see if you can get some ideas for additional content. You'd also need to reference your work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I've always been partial to info boxes on specific places and things...it lets you grab the info you need in a hurry without having to search through the article for it. -Seasee 29 June 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Family Guy

I've done extensive work on the Family Guy article - a lot of cruft removal and the like (two sections, "Continuity" and "Cutaways," were combined into "Structural and comedic approach"). Still, I know there's still quite a lot of work to be done, particularly within the extremely sloppy "History" section (I had to smash together two sections of nearly identical topic). If there are any specific problems there or elsewhere within the article, just point 'em out - or, maybe, if anyone else out there could help with the article itself, I'd much appreciate it. Thanks! Captain Yesterday 28 June 2005 05:20 (UTC)

A minor point - please sort the "External links" section by order of importance, and split them up into groups (eg. in the Dubya article). Harro5 June 28, 2005 11:37 (UTC)

Thanks to The wub for picking that up. Captain Yesterday 29 June 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Would like to see the controversy section organized more concisely--Will2k June 28, 2005 17:18 (UTC)

The "Revival efforts" section uses three different referencing styles. Try converting to just one, preferably the footnote referencing style. - Cedars 29 June 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Căile Ferate Române

Nominating this article, about Romania's state railway carrier, because I would really appreciate some feedback on its comprehensivity and any tips to improve its overall formatting, style, etc (in preparation to become a featured article). I would also appreciate feedback on the choice of name. Căile Ferate Române is the name of the company which runs the railway network in Romania, but would it be better to perhaps move the article to a generic name like "Rail transport in Romania"? Thanks, Ronline 07:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work. I think the model everyone should follow when writing these kind of pages are Nichalp's Indian Railways and Rail transport in India. There the topic is separated between the company and the system, which might be an idea here. I don't know enough about the subject to know if this page is comprehensive, but it seems good. Look at the India pages and see if they cover anything that this page does not. The one section that seems overly brief is ==Railways in Communist Romania==, especially when compared to teh post-1989 history. As to formatting there are perhaps too many very brief sections in the history portion. It might be a good idea to merge some of them together. Also in certain sections, especially ==Personal== and ==Rapid==, the pictures are overly dense making the article hard to read on lower screen resolutions. This could be solved by dropping the image width to 200px. - SimonP 19:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I will take a look at those India pages. The Communist-era section is a bit short because there just isn't that much information out there on the CFR site. I've tried to make it as extended as possible, but I will try to find another source that documents the developments in the railways during that period (maybe photos, too). The first 5 sections in the history portion have been placed under a "Railways in the 19th century" heading (I'm just wondering if this won't make the section seem less organised...) I agree that the pictures seem very "crammed" in the Personal-Rapid sehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Căile_Ferate_Române&action=edit

Edit this pagections. Is it Wikipedia style to put a gallery section (using the new syntax) under each section? Would that look good or would it break the flow. I've made the pictures 200px now, and the text does look more airy that way. Just another question - should References be separated into "Notes" and "References", with the Notes section including the footnotes, and References including just general sources? Thanks again, Ronline 08:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Good changes so far, the history section to me seems better organized. I also think the pictures as they are now are ideal. Personally I don't consider galleries very appealing in articles. If there are too many images to be integrated into the text I would upload them to the commons and add a link to a gallery there. As to references, the standard is to separate notes and references, and that section is thus perfectly formatted as it is now. - SimonP 14:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The article is looking really nice, good job guys! - FrancisTyers 15:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Would be nice to get it translated into Romanian for ro.wikipedia ;) - FrancisTyers 15:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion would be to mention where the rolling stock came from. I think that most of the stuff bought in the 70's was East German, or were they actually built in Romania? - FrancisTyers 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it will be translated into Romanian soon. Simon - there's already a pictures page for CFR over at Commons, which is linked from the article. As to mentioning where the rolling stock came from, I will try to do this more in detail, especially for the new rolling stock. Most rolling stock, new or old, on the CFR network, is actually from Romania. Some of the railbuses are from East Germany, while some locomotives are from former Yugoslavia, but mostly they were built in Arad and Craiova, Romania. The more recent ones come from Germany but are assembled in Arad, Romania. (A lot of 1970s stuff from East Germany were trams, buses and trolleybuses, which still run today). By the way, with the information from Xanthar, I've made a table showing all InterCity services and the type of rolling stock used. I've used the Unicode tick symbol (✓). Is this good form, or does this symbol have problems showing up on other computers? Ronline 08:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The tick symbol works fine for me :) Thanks for the clarification re: rolling stock. As I said, looking really nice. I'll check out CFR on commons. - FrancisTyers 10:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! The commons photos of rolling stock are at Commons:Train/Romania. I will categorise them on that page more neatly and add captions soon, but they're mainly the photos of rolling stock found in the article plus a few more InterCity photos. By the way, is it OK if I submit this article to featured article candidates now, or does it have to go through more peer review? One pending issue is the name of the article - would it be perhaps better to move it to Rail transport in Romania. Rail transport in Romania (and Romanian Railways) currently redirects to Căile Ferate Române. I don't think it's worth having two separate articles since I think it's superflous and also since, in Romania, CFR is almost synonymous with the Romanian railway system. At ro.wiki, I've also applied for a native pronunciation of the word "Căile Ferate Române", so this will be done soon to show people how to pronounce it (I'm also a native speaker but I don't have a microphone, so I can't do the recording). The word is pronounced approximately "Ca-ee-leh Feh-rah-teh Rom-âhn-eh", though the â sound does not have an English equivalent (the ă sound in Romanian is always pronounced like the last "o" in "London"). Since these types of guides are discouraged, I will get a pronunciation sound file. Ronline 10:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No More Drama

Nothing so important as Psychoanalytic theory, but I'd be greatly appreciative of any thoughts and opinions about the text, content, etc. on this page as it's one of the more involved articles I've written. Volatile 23:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It looks good. About the only thing that looked a little odd was the format of the notes down in the singles section. I think superscripted numbers (in the list) and numbered footnotes afterward would read better and be less confusing to untangle. — RJH 03:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I had a little trouble figuring out the footnotes, so I'll work that out. Once again, thanks for your comments. Volatile 29 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)
    • I took a shot at it. Feel free to revert if you don't like the look. :) — RJH 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)
      • Thanks! It looks a lot better. To be honest I got caught up in that pesky thing called life, and I forgot about it. :x Thanks again, looks great. Volatile 30 June 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Ginny Weasley

I think this has enough content to become a Featured Article at some point, although there may still be some work to be done. Any input is much appreciated. This is part of WikiProject Harry Potter --drak2 10:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will need extensive addition in a few weeks. let us know then. Septentrionalis 19:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see two issues with this article obtaining FA status. First, there is the bane of FAC submitters everywhere, Wikipedia:Cite your sources. While in my opinion an implicit reference to J.K. Rowling's books can reasonably be made, analysis or information from non-canonical sources must be properly referenced. This includes the references comparing Ginny to a Damsel in Distress along with all information regarding views of Ginny within HP fandom. Second, with the impending release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the information in this article is likely to see significant addition in less than a month. This article should wait until after it stabilizes before going to FAC. --Allen3 ^talk 20:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with waiting. Although I'd like to see the article as a FA, it will (hopefully dramatically) change in the second wekk of July. I say wait. --Jotomicron | talk 21:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Totally agree. Better wait with this until Half Blood Prince is released and resulting info incorporated. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

How about waiting till the 7th book is released to complete the thesis? :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comparing Ginny's crush on Harry to Charlie Brown's crush on the Little Red Haired Girl seems to be a huge stretch, unless Rowling herself said she was thing along those lines it probably should be taken out. If she did, it needs a reference. MechBrowman 21:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well...it's extremely ironic and the odds of it are pretty slim...

Sail training

I've greatly expanded this article from it's humble origins while trying to incorporate as much of the previous information as possible. As someone who is active in sail training, it is a personal project of mine to foster greater awareness of sail training and would like to eventually put it up for FAC. Any advice or criticism would be appreciated. -Seasee 21:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just from a cursory read, the article could benefit from a bit of NPoV - it currently suggests that sail training is good and great. While it may be, it's just a little bit unencyclopaedic to imply so (but nothing to put {{npov}} up about. Some of your external links should be in seperate sections, or better yet, made into lists (of each team et cetera) in seperate pages and linked to from here. Other than those minor things, great article. Falcon 04:43, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Have removed excess links and placed them in a secondary article. also re-edited for balance. thanks. Seasee 30 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Alsace

This is a featured article at fr: and I've translated the rest of the text that wasn't in en: to here. I appreciate the French wikipedians standards of an FA are different, but if anyone has any comments or suggestions I'll try my best to implement them. Craigy (talk) 07:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Good work, but it does need some changes. The lead needs to be longer, at least two or three paragraphs. There are also seem to be three overly short sections: economy, demographics, and politics. The French version has a much longer Economy section so that one could be solved by simply doing some more translation. The other two do not seem to exist in the French version and these should either be expanded so they can stand on their own or merged into other sections. - SimonP 15:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. The only real problem I spotted with getting this article to FA status is a lack of cited references. As you pulled material from the French Wikipedia, it needs to be cited. Some other references for that parts you did not pull, and to supplement the information you did pull, would also help this article reach Featured status. --Allen3 ^talk 21:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just take it to the featured article candidates! --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:50:27 (UTC)

Adore

Think this might be an interesting article for eventual FA candidacy. Want to slim down the flimsier writing or content, tighten the formatting, and whatever else might be appropriate. Right now a lot of one sentence paragraphs - this obviously needs some attention, too. --Girolamo Savonarola June 29, 2005 14:47 (UTC)

It's got a good body of content, but yes it could use a little tightening-down. Expressions such as "All eyes were on the recording" and "legendary producer" is straying into hyperbole. Some of the terminology might not be familiar to people who are not deeply into music, such as an album not being "acoustic", or a "short set" or "electronic music", and could use some cross-links. The page could use some references, and the chart position listings could be converted into proper tables. Sorry to nit-pick. Thanks. :-) — RJH 29 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Please feel free to nitpick! (That's why we're here, right?) You're not going to offend me - I didn't work on this article at all when I put it up for peer review. --Girolamo Savonarola June 30, 2005 02:48 (UTC)

US 12" Artwork

According to the information on the Adore page (*Artwork* section), it states that the LP release of Adore did not have show the album's title on the artwork.

I have found a website which clearly displays the title "Adore" on the red hibiscus image - http://www.blamo.org/sp/adorevinyl.shtml Can you please tell me which version is correct? Paranoid-andrew 07:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Witold Lutosławski

This article is about a major 20th century composer. I would welcome suggestions for its improvement with a view to its becoming a featured article.

It lacks images, but I am afraid I do not have any which are available for use by Wikipedia — if anyone has then that would be terrific. --RobertG ♬ talk 28 June 2005 11:37 (UTC)

I am pulling this peer review request (no new response for nine days): thanks everyone who contributed, the article is much improved. I will submit it as FAC on my return from Wikiholiday and when time permits some time mid to late August. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Image finding is made easier by the fact of Template:Polishpd - i.e. most if Polish pre-1994 photos and such are in fact PD. Also, remeber that album covers are fair use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
  • I don't feel confident enough in the copyright laws to upload album covers under fair use. I am aware that many people do without qualms. All the relevant pre-1994 photos I have found in books carry clear copyright status (which Template:Polishpd specifies as the exception to PD) and the publication dates of most images on the web will be after 1994. Also "Polish image" does not equate to "Image of Polish person". So I still don't believe I will be able to help with images. I'd still be grateful for anyone who can! --RobertG ♬ talk 4 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)

• An excellent article. I didn't see any significant flaws and it's an interesting read. Just out of curiousity though, was the couple survived by any children? Perhaps I missed it in the text, but I didn't see any mention of offspring. Thanks. — RJH 2 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any children - although I believe Danuta Lutosławska did have children by a previous marriage. --RobertG ♬ talk 3 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

• Very good article. I linked Polish-specific terms, I think it could go to FAC soon - although more images would be recommended. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
  • I am grateful to Piotr for taking the trouble to better wikilink many historical references. I have made changes to some edits because I believe that while they are interesting episodes in the history of Poland, they are not specifically relevant to Lutosławski's life: the change of status in Polish independence after WWI was only indirectly relevant to the family's return to their estates (it was the end of the war that enabled this move); the period of Poland's partition (123 years 1795-1918) is not directly relevant; while it is indirectly true that Poland's status as People's Republic after WWII affected him, it wasn't called People's Republic formally until 1952 so it is not directly relevant to what Lutosławski did in the late 1940s, and it is clear from the text that it was the rise of the Stalinists/Communists which affected his career. In the introductory paragraph I feel it is more informative to have "party line" linked to Socialist realism (which was the party line which Lutosławski's opposed) than to have "party" linked to the Polish United Workers' Party. --RobertG ♬ talk 4 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
    • I do feel that most of those ilinks - like to Second Polish Republic where he was born - should be kept in the article. I moved the link to Worker's party (which was, after all, *the party* he opposed) from lead to main text. We may lose the partitions link, it is not very relevant, although I see no harm in keeping it - the article is not that long that we need to shave it, IMHO. I recommend you look through History_of_Poland_(1945-1989) and History_of_Poland_(1918-1939) for some more ilinks of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
      • I'm still not convinced, Piotrus, as I think the two remaining links are actually misleading. I would like to reach agreement on your edits, because I have a very high regard for your knowledge of Polish history. The Second Polish Republic is not where he was born, because he was born in 1913 and that entity did not exist until 1918. Poland's regaining independence was not directly relevant to the Lutosławski's return home, and your edit implies that it was (they just returned home from Moscow when the war was over, as anyone would). It wasn't specifically the PZPR's party line he refused to toe; firstly, "toeing the party line" is commonly used as a figure of speech (particularly apposite in this case), and not as a political statement; secondly the artistic illiberalism ultimately came from Stalin personally, was to some degree prevalent over the whole Eastern Bloc, and followed partly from the 1948 Zhdanov decree, so to add a link specifically to the PZPR implying it was the only factor is misleading. I understand that you are keen to have references to articles about Polish history in the article; would it help if I added a "See also" section with links to relevant articles? --RobertG ♬ talk 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
        • Feel free to move the ilinks and tweak my edits. Of course the Second Republic didn't exist before 1918, but it is where he lived for over 20 years. While I didn't read anything on Lutosławski before, and I agree that his family return had much to do with end of the war, I am sure that the development of idenpendent Poland carried much weigh in their decison of when and where to return (why didn't they return in 1917, when fighting on the Eastern Front stopped)? PZPR was the 'party in the party line', and a voice of the Stalin and later Soviet overlords, so it definelty desrvers a mention - after all, when the article sais that he opposed the goverment, it means he opposed the PZPR (PZPR was the goverment). Of course, it wasn't the only factor, and you are right to try to point that out. However, I think that instead of removing the monetion of PZPR, we should explain what those other factors were and mention them all - you may want to expand on this and paste the explantion you gave me above, to make things more clear. I view see also as a last resort - 9 times out of 10, it is better to try to incorporate references and ilinks in mainbody. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
          • Thanks, Piotrus, I did! I hope I kept the sense of most of what you were saying. I was bold and removed the reference to independence as a reason for their return: to answer your objection, they didn't return until late 1918 because Lutosławski's father was in Butyrska prison until his execution in September that year (the article now explains this). --RobertG ♬ talk 4 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
            • Ok. But why do you keep removing the ilinks to Second Polish Republic and People's Republic of Poland? Remember: rewrite/move is good, deletion is not. And you can't say that the articles on the countries he lived in are not relevant to be linked? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
          • Sorry, Piotrus. I hadn't removed the links permanently. I think you've put them back in roughly where I was going to put them, anyway. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought I'd finished! --RobertG ♬ talk 5 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Sharon Tate

Please look this over and tell me what needs to be done to improve it. I have completely rewritten the article and have researched every point and everything can be linked to the references I've quoted. I have tried to take the "fanzine" tone out of the previous article. Also it's long - but I think it needs to cover her career, the murder and trials, and finally the work that has been done in her name by her family. I'm worried it may be considered too long, but I think it needs to be, and there are featured articles longer, so hope it's not a problem. Rossrs 15:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The aritlce isn't too long however it is missing references especially for things like quotes that will need to be added to get the article featured.--nixie 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how to deal with the references. I know it looks like there aren't enough, but everything in the article, quotes included, come straight from the books I cited. I just don't know how to substantiate them. With other articles I've contributed to, I've put links to webpages etc and cited them as references, but with Sharon Tate, all I can find on the net are fan pages that are grossly inaccurate, and make her sound like Mother Theresa so I'm not going to cite them. The majority of what I used is in the Greg King book I cited. I agree it looks inadequately referenced - I don't know how to fix it, because I really was scrupulous about checking and rechecking every fact/quote etc. Rossrs 28 June 2005 06:38 (UTC)

• It's well written and very comprehensive, I can't see anything that needs improvement. I think it's ready for FAC. Regarding references, this shouldn't be seen as a problem: it's better to have a few quality sources rather than a lot of references to websites. You may have problems with people questioning statements like "shy and aloof girl whose friendships with other children had always been transient", but if this is derived from the books you've used, then hopefully you won't have to water down sentences like that in the interests of some people's misguided sense of "NPOV". Deus Ex 2 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your opinion. The shy and aloof thing.... Hopefully it won't need changing, but I figure if several people refer to her as "shy" in the book, and several refer to her as "aloof" and someone else says her "friendships were transient" I can defend putting it all in one sentence. Just for example. But if it comes to that, I guess it can always be changed. Thanks. Rossrs 3 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

I had another look at that comment and reworded it more in line with what was written in the book rather than my paraphrasing it, and I think it's an improvement. Rossrs 3 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Gonzales v. Raich

This article is still fairly new and the implications are far from certain enough that this is likely to evolve to FA status soon, however it is a significant decision with broad impact on an issue of public importance, and any advice on improvement would be most welcome. Whig 29 June 2005 05:21 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty good right now. I only saw one formatting issue, the invalid "[[1995]" link further down in the text. The article manages to maintain a reasonably neutral tone throughout. Thanks. — RJH 15:14, 1 July 2005 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

I'm looking to elevate this article about Brazil to Featured article status. I believe it is well-developed and comprising. It was written mainly by 172, a declared historian. Notice that, although some topics may appear relatively short, it's because there's a main article on the given topic, so the information is not entirely on this article (necessary, for it is already 42 kilobytes long). Redux 02:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article needs footnotes/sources, the lead section might needs to be expanded and some might complain the WP:TOC might be a bit long. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the article was mainly written by 172, a historian. An older version of his user page (prior to his departure from Wikipedia) indicates that he might have written it from memory (he might teach about that). It would be unseemly that a historian would skip footnotes/sources if he had consulted books and such in order to write the article. This is, of course, my impression. Redux 02:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great article! Footnotes would be valuable but there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that lack them. One problem is the total absence of sources or at least references/resources. --Briangotts 02:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said in my previous comment, I do believe that 172 wrote the bulk of the article from memory. There are some figures there, but since he's a historian and, if my memory serves me well, a professor, he could too have remembered them by heart. Redux 02:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That won't matter, potentially controversial statements should be specifically sourced, and there should be references. As a historian, I'm sure he's read some books/papers on the subject to get his information, and it should be no problem to find them again. "Remembered by heart," however accurate, is not enough. (I realize he's left; if he can't be contacted for this purpose then someone will probably have to find a reference that covers the information.) Christopher Parham (talk) 05:03, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

I've already left a message in 172's talk page, since he said he'd check it out every now and then. No way to know if he'll respond to the request though. How big an obstacle would the lack of sources/references be for the article to be featured? Redux 05:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having sources cited is a formal requirement for an article to be Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And for those who are not familiar with the Featured Article requirements, please see Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent news! 172 has responded to my post on his talk page. He said that he will be adding the references in the next few days. Redux 1 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Starcraft

Aside from the need for more pictures, any idea how to improve this article? Borisblue 03:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It seems like some items that are not from the game need a reference. For instance there is no reference to justify the information about its popularity in South Korea. Barkeep49 16:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say that was common knowledge. Falcon 04:48, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Still the article does need more citations to back up its claims if it is to become a feature article. Perhaps this press release might be helpful? Cedars 2 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• It looks pretty comprehensive. Whatever isn't on this page appears to have been covered on the linked pages. But the description does suffer a bit from excessive praise. Statements such as "vast popularity" and "immensely successful" seem greatly over-inflated, IMO. It did well within it's market, but didn't exactly replace monopoly or chess. Most people have probably never heard of the game. So some of the descriptions seem a tad non-encyclopedic. :) — RJH 28 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Cimarron

Cimarron was recently overhauled from an inadequate original. I'd appreciate any comments and criticisms. One concern is the length of the article. I've kept the films and novel in the same article because they are all closely connected. Also, by themselves there would be several weak articles, as opposed to one strong central article. Thank you for your time and input. Volatile 1 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add at this time - I may have a closer look later - but I wouldn't worry too much about the length of the article. It seems to cover each section well, and the TOC is far from overwhelming. From a first glance, this looks pretty good at present. Just a query...has this recently been an FAC, or been under PR before? I thought I remembered that was the case. If it is, it might be good to add a link to the discussion here so we can see the previous problems. Harro5 (talk · contribs)

To my knowledge, the article has never been an FAC or under PR before this time. A look at the pages that link to the article also doesn't show any previous FAC or PR links. Thank you for your comments, and I appreciate any suggestions that would help further develop the article. Volatile 16:47, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

I think this is a wonderfully detailed, facually accurate, and NPOV article on an important and controversial cultural celebrity. --Malathion 28 June 2005 09:14 (UTC)

I'm not sure about having an article on him, and then a separate page on his biography. From the looks of it, it seems there is just too much stuff. Not even Presidents or Popes get two pages just to tell their biography. Fischer may have been a good chess player and a controversial figure at times, but this article needs to be greatly condensed - take no mercy! - unless he suddenly becomes President, Pope and the guy in the Batman suit all at once. Harro5 June 28, 2005 11:34 (UTC)

Agreed, the two pages should be merged and condensed. Having a single 50kb article is less of a problem than forcing readers to choose between two arbitrarily divided ones. - SimonP June 28, 2005 15:00 (UTC)

I think the article was originally split up because it was overlong! Your point is taken, but for the sake of devils advocacy: Are you sure it is a good idea to delete such a massive amount of good prose (as would be required to merge two already long articles) if most of that prose is actually relevant to his story?

I think the Sousse, 1967 section could be axed entirely without damaging the flow of the article. --Malathion 28 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)

I really cannot stand the fact that this guy has two articles. I'm sorry, but no one is that worthy on Wikipedia - Bobby's the only person I've ever with two articles to discuss what is essentially just events in his life. This has to be cut down, and I feel no one can claim improvements have been made via this peer review unless there is just one nice, concise article at the end. End of rant. Thanks. Harro5 July 3, 2005 09:59 (UTC)

Sorry that you are taking it so personally. ;) I am planning to combine the two articles within the next couple of days. --Malathion 3 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Done and done. The articles are merged. Is there anything else that could be improved? --Malathion 4 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

Thank you Malathion, I might even consider giving you a Barnstar for saving me from ranting on any more about there being two articles. It looks very good now, and is very interesting. Most importantly, having one article allows the reader to see every major event Fischer has been involved in. Previously, the reader would have read about a champion chess player, and not realised how out of the mainstream his political views are. Well done, this should head to FAC after another week or two on peer review. Harro5 July 4, 2005 23:53 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that he only made two chess contributions (innovations). Surely he developed some opening or line. What about his effect ont he style of the game? I tto find the destinction between the two arbitrary. This link is Broken 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Yes, that section needs to be expanded. I'll add something about Fischer's massive contributions to opening theory in the Sicilian. --Malathion 28 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Good work with the merge, you could even replace some of the removed content as it is currently only 24kb. To get it to FA status the lead should be somewhat longer. Another problem is that ==Fischer in popular culture== is too short to justify its own section. It should either be expanded, merged into another section, or deleted.- SimonP July 6, 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Remington M1867

Self-nomination. Want to make this article as good as possible - all sort of comments on how to do this welcome WegianWarrior 3 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)

• Good detail on what you've covered so far, but I think the article should include detail of which battles/wars the rifle was deployed in, and if possible how successful it the weapon was, perhaps how reliable it was on the battlefield too. I'm not sure what this sentence means:"Further testing including use by untrained troops made the Peabody and the Remington suitable for use". What exactly do you mean by "use made the Peabody and the Remington suitable for use". Do you mean that further testing on a firing range proved that the rifles fired accurately enough for military use for example? Also, were the rifles manufactered in the US? It says the design was American, but is it possible to find out which company assembled the rifle. Deus Ex
  • Luckily, Norway didn't go to war in the period the M1867 was in use. I've rewritten the sentence you mentioned - it seems like something got messed up at one point.. might have been me, might have been another editor. At least it should be better now. The Remington was American (or rather, US-ian =) ) in design, but all production rifles was manufactured in Norway and Sweden - I've updated the page to show this too. I'll see if I can't find more info on how reliable it was - my main source (the book mentioned in the reference section) is somewhere else at the moment, but I'll dig around. WegianWarrior 4 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)

FC Zwolle

I've created this article, and after a time-out spent on other articles, I have today expanded this article. I'm afraid I have to admit I have now reached a writer's block. What parts could I add? And what improvements does the article as it exists need? Anyone is more than welcome to review this article, but I'm especially looking for peer reviews of users with experience with other football-related articles. Aecis 17:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm fairly new here (~400 edits), so I can't judge what would make it featured article standard but I've got a few ideas for improvements. I've made a few grammatical changes to the article. Here's how I think it could be improved:

• The history section could do with being split into sections.
• I think it would be better to name the Eredivisie as the highest level in Dutch football and then just refer to it as the Eredivisie later in the article, instead of writing "the highest level of Dutch football".
• There are large gaps in the history section - there's nothing from 1910-1955 and nothing from 1955-78. There must have been something worth mentioning in those periods - some promotions and relegations maybe?
• It might be worth adding some more statistics at the end - record victory, record attendance, that sort of thing. I wouldn't have thought this would be essential though.

Hope that helps a bit. CTOAGN 20:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips :-) I've added some statistics, I've sectioned the club history and I've changed the use of Eredivisie and "the highest level of Dutch football". When I can find the time, I'll expand the club history. Any other tips? Aecis 28 June 2005 19:23 (UTC) I've now processed the first parts of the club history. There's more on its way.

Some tips (rather than "you need to do this"-suggestions):

• Expand the introduction with a few sentences. Make the reader interrested in the team. The reader will think "Why should I continue reading?", and you'll have to find an answer to that and write it down in the introduction. For example mentioning the date of foundation, the two runners-up in the cup, or the fact that the club almost went bankrupt once but managed to fix that, but then went bankrupt a few years later. Maybe move parts of the introduction you have under history directly up to the real introduction, and move the rest into the history section?
• I think there is no need to italicize the club names in the first history paragraph. Even though the Manual of Style mentions italicizing of foreing phrases, I personally don't think that it does apply to club names (or the bank name further down, which might also be wikilinked?). Speaking about the history section. If you intend to expand it even more at a later stage, consider moving the contents to History of FC Zwolle and just keep a shortened version at FC Zwolle.
• IMHO, the squad section takes way to much place. Consider making it more compact by using the style commonly used on other pages, for example Arsenal F.C. (whose history section is way too long, BTW) or IFK Göteborg (shameless self-promotion ;D). If you still want to retain the positions of the players, check out my solution at the IFK article. For extra facts (like new for the season), place it in parantheses and italicized after the player name. The method recommended also includes player numbers.

Hope it helps, and please contribute more to the various football articles, it is needed! -- Elisson | Talk 3 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well. I've expanded the intro and edited the italics. The problem was with the squad section. What you have done with the IFK Göteborg (GK, DF, MF, ST) was a very good solution. The only problem I faced is that FC Zwolle doesn't play with dedicated numbers. The starting line-up has numbers 1 thru 11, and that is different every match. So I sorted the players in alphabetical order, which seemed like the most logical thing to do. Aecis 3 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Looking good! Sorting after surname was a good solution. I have no further suggestions, although, as I am not a native speaker of English, you might want to get someone fluent in English that can copyedit the article (as you've expanded the article since CTOAGN looked it through), if that is needed. -- Elisson | Talk 4 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

I forgot. If you want it up on Wikipedia:FAC, you might want to add a non-copyrighted image, and also try to reduce the number of red links in the squad, legendary playeres and coaches sections, by creating articles on the persons in question. -- Elisson | Talk 4 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Psychoanalytic theory

It'll take more than a clean-up tag to move this ball forward. This is more or less a complete re-write, rather than a touch-up, so I'm asking for broad feedback on further improvements. Buffyg 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Missed the requirement to add article to peer review list. Submitting in accordance with rules. Buffyg 14:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for the peer-review

The article should not require a paragraph to describe what it is about; instead, its scope should simply be theories to do with psychoanalysis. It should include subsections on the question of whether (and how) psychoanalysis can be studied objectively, whether it is disproveable in whole or part (and whether this matters), the informal "theory" of the manners in which analysis can be conducted (e.g. bare room unlike Freud; methods of interpretation), and the relationships with behavioural, cognitive, and psychiatric (and perhaps even literary) theories. It would be interesting to have an explanation (theory) of why psychoanalysis has resisted decline so much more successfully in France than in anglophone countries. Rather than complicated sentences with complicated words, we should be treated to simple descriptions of the differences between Freudian, Jungian, and Adlerian thinking. Possibly in lists if that helps to simplify the sentences.

The article does not require a paragraph to describe what it is about; it takes the opening paragraph to delineate its subject matter. I think the word objective is used above in an impoverished sense. One question that arises in psychoanalytic theory is what exactly one is saying when one claims that psychoanalysis is a science. If one is talking about eidectic proof, one is definitely not in the realm of falsifiability in Popper's sense.

We certainly need to talk more about the subject matter in some detail (the current article is mostly a sketch), but a comparison of Freud, Jung, and Adler can be made by reading those entries. Hypothesising on the relative strength of psychoanalysis in the French vs. anglophone contexts would be going rather far into the field of original research, which is what wikipedia is supposed not to be. Writing the article as a series of lists for the benefit of simpification is almost certainly doing so for the benefit of oversimplification. Buffyg 23:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful reply. I think we need to aim for readability by a wide audience, and this requires we use more common usages than "eidetic proof", which I for one don't understand. I agree that lists usually impose a simplistic way of thinking, but that to me is better than <<<"Major thinkers within psychoanalytic theory include Nicholas Abraham, Serge Leclaire, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Slavoj Zizek, Jacques Derrida, René Major, Luce Irigaray, and Jacques-Alain Miller; their work is anything but unitary — Derrida, for example, has remarked that virtually the entirety of Freud's metapsychology, while possessing some strategic value previously necessary to the elaboration of psychoanalysis, ought to be discarded at this point, whereas Miller is sometimes taken as heir apparent to Lacan because of his editorship of Lacan's seminars, his interest in analysis is even more philosophical than clinical, whereas Major has questioned the complicity of clinical psychoanalysis with various forms of totalitarian government.">>>

Thank you for accepting the possibility of extending the article's scope; we should probably start with a reworking of the first sentence, which seems to me to (a) define the article in terms of what it excludes, and (b) include a redundant clause.

I agree that links to Freud, Jung etc are important but this article could be a good place for comparing and contrasting them. The psychoanalysis article includes some good text on theory, and we should avoid duplication. This may require discussion with the authors of that (excellent) article.

Porgy and Bess

I believe this article to be ready for FA. However, I am more familiar with the subject than most; and would like a layman's opinion on the article, in terms of writing and structure. If nothing is wrong, I will put this up for FA. --Alexs letterbox 10:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. I can't see anything significant that needs fixing. Thanks. — RJH 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am now putting it up for FA, any other comments can go there. --Alexs letterbox 05:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Guiding Light

Right now some good soap contributors have started writing a detailed history of the show. However, all soap contributors have some POV or another regarding actors, characters, and most importantly, WRITERS. I've found words such as "obnoxious" and "sleazy" to describe storylines and characters, which isn't exactly NPOV. Can any of you pinpoint things you felt were bothering you during your casual read-through, and tell me what you would do about it (assuming you're not that much of a soap viewer...that would probably be best for NPOV). Mike H 15:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I put the "obnoxious" but I did put "sleazy" to describe the storylines of 1996. Several of them were panned by the soap press (specifically the one about Gilly lusting after her own father) and drove the ratings to such low points that GL was nearly canceled. I don't think it's a POV violation to consider this "sleazy" - it's a broad opinion of many GL viewers and soap magazine writers at that time. If you look at the entire article I think it is generally restrained and balanced, and not any sort of horrible POV violation. I hope you reconsider this because it seems like a lot over one or two words. If you don't like the words then just take them out. I don't think removing them or slightly altering them will change the tone of the article. If you want me to reference some of the soap critics (such as the editors at Soap Opera Digest, and former Soap Opera Weekly columnist Marlena de LaCroix) who criticized these 1996 storylines, I will. I think Marlena went as far to call them "lurid". --JamesB3 00:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GL has been on the "nearly canceled" block since about 1990 so I think it's unfair to say one year nearly made them get canceled. Mike H 02:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a horrible thing to have a peer review. I think it's a good thing to have the article looked at by different eyes, especially eyes who don't watch soap operas and go to the article wanting to know about the show, without any previous initiation. Mike H 02:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got that about 1990, but the show was still doing fairly well until 1994. That's when the ratings crashed and the cancellation rumors picked up steam. The show improved in 1995 but 1996 was a very low point and that was when the rumors about "Bold & the Beautiful" becoming an hour and taking GL's time were at their highest. Since you have said yourself that you haven't seen any of the 1996 episodes, then I don't think it's unfair for me, who watched the episodes and who read the press comments from the time (at that time there were rumors about GL and ATWT, I think even in TV Guide), to say that 1996 nearly got them canceled. And while a peer thing isn't horrible, I would think that people can read the article simply by looking at the article, instead of being pushed into a peer review based on one or two words that could have been easily edited out. If you tell me all the parts you object to, I will go back and edit them in a manner that you feel is less POV.--JamesB3 03:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's just it...I don't want YOU to edit it. I want other people who don't watch soaps to give us their opinions. Not that you aren't a capable editor...it's just that I think it needs new eyes. Mike H (Talking is hot) 03:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It has been over a week and no one has made a suggestion or a comment. Apparently no one is interested in this topic, or have not been so far. So I will request again, if you have any concerns about the article, please just make the editing changes you deem necessary. --JamesB3 6 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Robert Stanley Weir

Good day. I have researched extensively and written this new article on the lyricist for O Canada. I would like some feedback on ways to improve it to featured article status and then, use that same feedback in creating Alexander Muir and expanding Calixa Lavallée and Adolphe-Basile Routhier. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

• Looks good, but to get it FA status you will need a longer lead, probably two paragraphs. Also there are far too many one sentence paragraphs that should either be merged together or expanded. - SimonP July 2, 2005 15:35 (UTC)
  • Thank you Simon. That is good advice. I'm surprised that I had never seen that Wikipedia:Lead section guideline before. I had been going by Wikipedia:Biography standards which seems to indicate a very brief definition-type lead. Making the lead a stand-alone synopsis seems like a better idea. I'd also sensed some of the paragraphs were lean but I did not want to veer too far off into context and off the topic of Weir. Perhaps I ought to re-work the section divisions. I'd used {{Biography}} for a template but perhaps it is too artificial and contrived to begin with those divisions. I'll give a go at re-writing and letting the divisions come more naturally in a few days and I'll let you know how it goes. I welcome anyone's input and edits as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 3 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

Okay, I have made some changes. The intro has been expanded to two paragraphs in length and I have merged some short paragraphs. I also split out an Education section from the Early life section. I kind of like having it neatly divided like that but it makes for single paragraph sections. Do you think it would be better to merge Education and Marriage into Early life?

I appreciate any feedback and feel free to try edits you feel helpful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:02, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

Gustav Mahler

Did this in a day's work using a couple of references. This is my first major overhaul of a WP article, so I'd like to get some feedback and see how I did; I tried to follow the guidelines for a good article as much as I could. Comments and thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks! TheProject 05:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, overall. If anything he made is online (it should be public domain since he died in 1911), adding it as samples to external links would be good. Try incorporating material from see also (Category:Compositions by Gustav Mahler) into main article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find any sheet music at the sheet music archive. I'm not familiar with where to find OGG files of music, either -- can someone give me some pointers? I notice there are generally only OGGs of well-known works. Are the OGG files found on composer/works pages made by WP users, or released by independent artists, or what? Assistance is gratefully appreciated. (It is my understanding that MP3s are a copyvio, is this correct?) TheProject 22:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is possible to make .ogg files from digital recordings, as long as they are less than 30 seconds in length they can be used in Wikipedia under the provision of fair use. They're not absolutley necessary but they do enhance an article. Otherwise the article looks very good.--nixie 02:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it is very good. If at all possible, a further exploration of his legacy would be helpful. Your section on "Works" is particularly good. 06:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 28 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)>

There are certain elements of POV that I can see creeping into the article, especially in ways that romanticize the composer's persona. Some of the worst examples:

• Choosing clarity over a mass orgy of sound, he never left the principle of tonality
• This led to tensions between Mahler and his orchestras, even as those tentions produced finer performances
• Keenly aware of the colourations of the orchestra, the composer filled his symphonies with flowing melodies and expressive harmonies, achieving bright tonal qualities using the clarity of his melodic lines.

There are also some passages that use unnecessarily flowery or colorful language Here are some examples:

• he had taught the public to revere the works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, and Christoph Willibald Gluck
• focuses on increasing severity of expression, including the "Tragic" symphony, whose hammer blows shocked Viennese audiences and inspired other composers.
• his works won over an audience hungry for the next wave of musical exploration.

Overall, the article could use a bit more subsectioning. The "biography" section is by no means too long, but it should be broken down into two or three sections. Same goes for the "Music" section, which could use a little organization in general. There should be more discussion of his legacy, as mentioned above. In particular, his effect on other composers needs some further explanation. How did he affect Schönberg, Berg, and Webern? Alos, when was the first complete set of symphony recordings done?

</Jun-Dai>

I'm by no means a Mahler expert - I certainly don't know enough to contribute many facts here - and this article seems to me a grand start; I learnt a lot. However, he's a major figure without doubt and I think the article needs to be longer, with more details. A few comments follow, all meant to be positive; there are some grammar/style preferences which I won't mention as they're easily fixed - the content is the hard bit! And also I recognise that TheProject inherited some content from the previous versions of the article! Introductory paragraph: I don't think the length of one of his symphonies and opinion about what represents the "peak" of his vocal writing (whatever that means) are significant enough; I think the intro should be a potted version of the whole article (perhaps a para about his life, one about his music and legacy). I think his whole biography could be expanded somewhat (some different subheadings, maybe, of a few paragraphs each). There seem to be several chunks of his life missing. I'd like to see more details of his early life: was there music in his family? did Mahler actually study with Bruckner at Vienna Uni? did he study with anyone else of note? did he major in composition or conducting? Was he single-handedly responsible for the change of public taste in opera in Vienna (how did he educate the public?)? The first symphony mentioned in the biography is no. 4 - where do the first three fit? This is discussed a bit in the "Music" section ("divided into three periods"). Was expediency really the main reason for his conversion? - it's such an important factor (isn't it what led him to set Veni Creator Spiritus in Symphony No. 8?) that I think this deserves some expansion. I'd like to be given some examples of the "stubborn obstinacy" mentioned. What made the anti-semitic attacks of 1907 more unbearable than other attacks (if that can be done without repeating the attacks on Wikipedia)? A little more detail about his time in the USA would be nice. Did Alma Mahler survive him (I know she had two more notable husbands - Gropius and Werfel - subsequently to her marriage to Mahler)? Some of his songs are with piano accompaniment, aren't they? More details about innovations (and combining voice/chorus and orchestra in a symphony was not in itself an innovation!). Legacy: I'd like to see more evidence for the claimed influence on Hollywood (wasn't that influence exerted through Korngold's enforced emigration there?) and on the 2nd Viennese school (and for that, more detail about Bruckner's influence on Mahler). I don't think Benjamin Zander and Marcus Stenz are that well known, and Horenstein died in 1973. I hope you don't think any of these comments are negative - I have tried to make them all ideas or suggestions for improvements to this stimulating article which has much potential. --RobertG ♬ talk 30 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Nope, I hardly think anything is negative here -- that's what I love about WP, except that I've been ridiculously busy lately *and* I'm out of town right now, so I'll try to take into consideration all these suggestions when I get back. But thanks to everybody for the input. TheProject 16:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 30 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)>

I disagree that the article should be longer. I think it's about the right length, though there should be some reprioritizing of information, and some of the more important sections should be expanded into separate articles. Those can be much more detailed, and with those in place you might feel more comfortable excising some of the details in this article. I don't know that Ludwig van Beethoven is the best model to work off as an article in general, but certainly you should look at how effectively Beethoven's musical style and innovations and Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven have been pulled into separate articles, freeing up the main article from having to cover them in great detail. Mahler could use a similar kind of organization.

</Jun-Dai>

The Oz Books

I have made extensive contributions to this page, and would love to see it as a Featured list. It appears this was PR'ed before, but I can't find the original request. I have put Baum's original 14 books in a very nice table as well as added a couple of references, and edited the text a bit. Any other suggestions? --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 5 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

• The layout looks good, particularly the way the table of books has been constructed. However the descriptive paragraphs do seem to steadily decrease in length toward the end of the table. Maybe a couple more sentences could be added to these later descriptions? Do the books actually 'deal with the "history" of the Land of Oz'? Or are they just tales based within the land of Oz? I did find some old archived references by looking at the "what links here", but there wasn't much feedback to be found. — RJH 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback...I was starting to worry no one would! As for the "history" vs. "tales", they are tales within the land of Oz, but when they were being written, the authors styled themselves as "Royal Historians of Oz", who were writing down the Land's history. Some even deal with some Oz history, Like The Lost King of Oz by Thompson asks what happened to Ozma's father when the Wizard came into power. Other than that, they are mostly adventures/tours of Oz.--[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 7 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Disneyland Railroad

This article has grown in leaps and bounds in the last couple of months into one of the most detailed works I've seen on this site. What can we do to bring this up to feature status? - Lucky 6.9 6 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

One thing I missed was more pictures of the various stations and such mentioned. Other than that, looks good to me. WegianWarrior 6 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)

The lead should be expanded somewhat to summarise the whole article. Some current images that are copyright free would be nice too.--nixie 6 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

• I'll gladly do both. I'm on my way there next week for the big fiftieth anniversary celebration. I can snap all sorts of photos of the stations and the new locomotive which I've yet to see in the flesh. A photo of a train at Main Street Station taken from the entrance plaza is a must. Keep me posted...? - Lucky 6.9 6 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

OK, I've touched up the lead-in as well as a few other little hiccups and added some more info. Can someone take a look at the text and get back to me? I can add photos late in the week of the 18th. Thanks! - Lucky 6.9 7 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Boston, Lincolnshire

This article has seen some nice expansion over the last few months but could use cleanup, hopefully a few fresh eyes can make the difference. Zerbey 30 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Small issue. I really don't like the external link being used on the first word of the article. Surely there's a better place for this (ie. the external links section). Thanks. Harro5 July 3, 2005 09:48 (UTC)

I didn't know about featured articles but I have had a random dip into the list and find that those I looked at; Bath, Charles II of England and Trench warfare were of a higher standard than Boston, Lincolnshire is.

Uniformity is not everything but I think the Boston page should be looked at with a view to presenting the day to day factual material in a way similar to that of other town articles unless there is some reason not to. It needs something on provision in fields such as education, health, business, transport etc.

I am not convinced of the merits of presenting the list of attractions as a bald list as the Bath page does but some policy thought is perhaps needed here as the Boston page is semi-narrative in this section. That part too is as yet incomplete.

One obvious omission, as it stands, is a references section. However, there are other omissions and shortages. It is nearly all history in one way or another. The footnote links in the Bath page are worth considering as a way of tying the references into the statements in the text.

I think it best to wait and see whether someone can come up with something in these areas. (RJP 6 July 2005 13:01 (UTC))

Its Ok. However if your goal is to post it for FA status, there's a lot of other content that can be added. Why don't you look at city articles that have gained Featured status? =Nichalp «Talk»= July 8, 2005 09:12 (UTC)

I notice that at one point the article cites as its source for the transfer of property between 2 medieval lords to "(DB Lincs 12 - 67)". Is this a citation to the Domesday Book? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to spell that out? I also noticed some in-text external links to various local landmarks (e.g., Skirbeck & Sibsey); shouldn't these be to Wikipedia articles instead? -- llywrch 8 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

The reminder to put the DB footnote in should not have been overlooked: Sorry.

The Sibsey etc. links call up illustrative maps. A link to an article even if the article existed, would not serve the present purpose. That is not to say that articles on the various places should not be written. Rather, They would not make the point in this instance. (RJP 8 July 2005 22:17 (UTC))

Cannabis (drug)

Suggestions appreciated for how this article may be improved, towards eventual FAC nomination. Whig 29 June 2005 05:10 (UTC)

• I will try to do the ref/Note templates. We should have some more references and perhaps, should try to introduce some slang terms for this, if possible. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 19:09 (UTC)
  • The lead could also be expanded. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 19:11 (UTC)

There is some amateurish and tendentious stuff in the section on long term effects that ought to be removed. For example, that specious analogy about inferring causation from use of cannabis for glaucoma and aids is so simplistic or intellectually dishonest as to actually suggests some adverse effects of intellectual function (like an impaired high schooler's defense of his pot smoking). Second, psychiatry does not reject "the validiity of spiritual experience" or equate it with psychosis. A psychiatrist's diagnosis and definition of psychosis is based on other criteria entirely. Did Tom Cruise drop by to contribute his opinion? This is a long way from featured article quality! alteripse 8 July 2005 11:33 (UTC) OK, I made the changes I suggested. Much else in the article seems good. alteripse 8 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons and the United States

I wrote this up a few weeks ago, and think I hit most of the major bases. My goal is to develop a prototype article which could be used for all of the nuclear powers (and non-nuclear ones as well, potentially) which would give a brief synopsis of the country's involvement with nuclear weapons — historically and up through the current status. I'm concerned with making sure the article is understandable by people without much knowledge of military jargon or nuclear weapons minutiae and keeping a neutral POV. The article is currently a little tipsy at 38K, as well. Any suggestions and editing eyes would be appreciated. Many thanks. --Fastfission 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

This is great work. One element that I would expect to have in an article covering all aspects of nuclear weapons and the United States is more on the concerns over nuclear attack. It would be good to have a section on various defensive programs, such as Dew Line, Duck and Cover, and SDI, as well as something on the public fears and the cultural effects of the threat of nuclear war on the United States. Conversely the page could also be reamed to something more specific, such as "United States nuclear weapon program." The only other concern is that the lead does not yet meet the Wikipedia:lead guidelines. - SimonP July 8, 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Pope Gregory I

There certainly needs to be some documentation for the statement "Gregory declared himself to be a saint." --Sophroniscus 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Corrected, and fixed the infobox. Just glancing at his entry at the Catholic Encyclopedia tells me that much more on him could be written. Lupo July 7, 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Agreed, Way too short. -- Rmrfstar 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

I see that it was corrected. I think, however, being canonized should not be listed as an accomplishment, but should go either before or after the list of accomplishments. --Sophroniscus 7 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

You could change and improve the article yourself. Lupo July 8, 2005 06:32 (UTC)

Well, OK. Any other suggestions? --Sophroniscus 8 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

A very important article fro Wikipedia. I'd be very interested in hearing some feedback on this article with the aim of seeing it as a featured article later this year. Any comments (structure, POV concerns, image problems), please raise them and I'll respond and act accordingly. Harro5 July 8, 2005 01:58 (UTC)

• I'm sure you've notice the complete lack of references, inline or general references would be good. I seems a little on the short side, but it should be easy to fleah out some more while fixing the reference issue. The trivia section is not something that generally appears in FA's where possible incorporate them into the text or get rid of them entirely. --nixie 10:28, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Bettie Page

Since I started this article years ago this might be considered a self-nomination, but it's attracted a lot of attention from other Wikipedians, & after reading it once again, this article feels to me worthy of FAC consideration. I'm posting it here to test the waters to see if anyone else feels the same way. -- llywrch 8 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

It's pretty good overall. The page could use a couple of section dividers: one for her modelling career and the second for the aftermath. That first picture of her isn't very flattering. It'd be good to have a portrait-style image at the top, with the B&D image down in the appropriate section. But that's just my opinion, of course. :) — RJH 16:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Bong

I would like to see this become a featured article. Even considering the subject matter I believe the article meets all of the Wikipedia standards and has some really good prose. Triddle 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I did some spelling cleanup. Also there is a word in the article that is sometimes spelled "spotty" and sometimes "spottie." From what I saw, there's no explanation for the duplicate spellings, and since I know nothing about bongs, I'm just letting you know.--Esprit15d 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help on the copy edit and I'll fix the multiple spellings of the same word. Triddle 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• More references, and get in-line citations if you can. Also try not to mix external links and references together. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: What would you like to see cited? I've had a hard time figuring out exactly what should be cited. As it stands now the definition of a bong is cited, and the claim that bong water filters out more THC than anything else (which is counter intuitive and contrary to popular belief) is cited too. Other than that the article does not claim anything extraordinary. Can you elaborate a little please? I'm willing to dig up the citations I just don't know what should be cited. Triddle 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A generally successful method is to run through the article as if from someone that doesn't believe the material. What could they object to? Overall, prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of what are the most important, central, and/or contentious claims. Cite those, and then cite any specific facts in any tables and quotes or whatever. Aim for 20 or so citations to high quality sources. The subject in question may be hard to get good sources for, but see what you can do. - Taxman ^Talk 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much. I'll do some digging. Triddle 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article could use a history section. I already did a little digging on this and did not have very positive results. Perhaps someone else can suggest where I might find some bong history resources? Triddle 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not bad, I'd change the cleaning section to make it sound less like an instruction manual, though. And perhaps something to relate bongs to other types of pipes and water pipes. --BadSeed 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed - thanks for the comments. I'll try to integrate a history section and your comparison ideas together into a short first section of the article. Triddle 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Seventies

The Seventies was a previous collaboration of the week (as I type this, it is now in its final hours as collaboration). I know there are many things that can be improved with the article, but I think I would like people to list them. Strengths and weaknesses. What should be covered in history and worldwide trends and what shouldn't. What should be in daughter articles. Stuff like that. I know there are some glaring omissions (NO talk of Africa, South Asia, or the worldwide trend of feminism, etc.), and those can be rectified. I just want to know what else you think is missing and what can be fixed. Mike H (Talking is hot) 03:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

My main concern is that it is already over 70kb and there are still major gaps, especially in the economy and social issues sections. My suggestion is to move the film and television sections into their own subarticles and replace them with a brief summary. The national issues section is currently somewhat overly ambitious. Are we going to have full sections on every country? I would suggest making all the sections broader so that we have one per continent or major region thus one section on all of Europe, one East Asia, another on the Eastern Bloc, etc. - SimonP 15:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I wanted them in regions, but obviously countries like the US, the UK, Japan, the Soviet Union...you know, countries that dominated the world stage at this time, should deserve sections of their own. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is impressive, but as you say yourself - incomplete. It fails to mention events in most of the world. To be comprehensive, it will likely be much larger then 100kb - so you will need to move some material into subsections (yes, 100kb is too much even for me :>). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

Can movies and television be moved into its own page section? lots of issues | leave me a message 19:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but it needs to be summarized, which is a gargantuan task in itself since it covers so many trends. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Linux

I would like to know what we need to do to get this to FA status. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It looks good overall; plenty of content and it looks relatively well organized. Just a couple of minor points:
  • In the "Applications" section, the first paragraph and the first sentence in the second paragraph seem disconnected with the remainder of the section. Were those two paragraphs meant to be down in the "Usability and market share" section?
  • I've often heard the mildly humorous quote that Linux is a recursive acronym that means: "Linux is not UNIX". But I didn't see that mentioned in the page. Is there any history on the origin of that quote? RJH 15:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As far I as know, 'Linux' comes from the authors name, Linus Torvalds. Maybe you are confusing it with GNU (GNU's Not Unix) -- 213.67.47.131 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Could be just a joke - sounds like a backronym. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Linux' is indeed named after Linus Torvalds. See for example [2]. The 'x' comes from Unix (as in Minix, Xenix, Interix, HP-UX, Mt. Xinu, AIX, etc.). 'Linux is not Unix', as an explanation of the name, is almost certainly based on confusion with 'GNU's Not Unix'. I had never encountered the phrase in this context until I read it here (and I've been using Linux since 1999). The phrase 'Linux is not Unix' is however often used as a statement of fact, to explain that Linux isn't based on Unix source code, unlike for example FreeBSD. —PrologFan {Talk} 22:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Either way it's a very common expression in the Linux community. If you do a google search for "Linux is not UNIX" (in quotes) you get about 6000 hits. It's also listed on the wikipedia's list of backronyms page. I've even had it quoted to my face on more than one occasion. Some think it may have been Linus' attempt to deny the language was named for him. Others that it was just be an anonymous play on the old GNU backronym. But I do think that the common usage of this expression means that it needs to be covered somehow. Thanks. :) — RJH 28 June 2005 14:20 (UTC)
  • It's not intentional, but the closely related GNU is intentionally "GNU's Not Unix." The phrase is merely an extension of the same joke. Nifboy 8 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
• I did a rewrite of the Windows Emulation section. I haven't actually read the rest of the article, but it seems like it could use some accuracy as well as copyediting to make it more readable by a non-technical audience. Scott Ritchie 02:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's a bit obvious that the author here is very friendly to Linux. --malathion ^talk 12:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

An anon IP placed this article on the FAC page a month or so ago. I automatically corrected the link and made the FAC subpage, and after actually reading the article, decided to push for it. To make a long story short, I agree with all of the objections raised (see the failed FAC here). I've fixed all the minor objections, and I just wanted to get more opinions before doing any major rewriting/editing. I've been kind of busy, so that's why it has taken me so long to turn my attention to this article. Anyways, thanks for all your input! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 6 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

• Things that come to mind: too many short paras - merge. Others = trivia in didsguise - rewrite. It's closer to FAC then not, with some effort this should get through. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 7 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

• One more: too many subsections, TOC is a monster. Try to eliminate half of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I wonder why this PR is getting so little response... (trying to get people to "chip in" opinions and input)... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

It is well after the fact, but here is some automated peer review:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• 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. For example,
  • it has been
  • allege
  • correctly
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 45 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy _t 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

List of UN peacekeeping missions

I guess I'm planning on submitting this for FLC eventually, and would like any feedback. It was created all of 3 days ago. I'd like any ideas on the formatting (which was a hassle, as I am somewhat technically challenged), and any other areas, (like the lead could probably use a look-over). If you see those two blank "conflict" spaces, it's because I can't figure out what goes there, and help is appreciated. Also note, I still need to sort out that operation-name-linking mess, as some of the articles are at the full name, while many are at the acronym (so many of those red links'll go away). Thoughts? --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 08:10 (UTC)

• Can't really help you on the technical stuff, but I'd like to shower you with praise for a moment :). I love the way this page looks - the colour of the tables, the brilliant touch of adding flags, the outrageous amount of simple but effective detail! Once the tech problems are sorted, and they will be soon enough, I'll be all too happy to support this for FL. Well done. Harro5 July 6, 2005 08:21 (UTC)
  • This list looks great, great work on the formatting. One things is that it is unusual to have a separate column for flags, most lists just add the flag to the location column (see any of the Olympics pages or List of African countries by GDP for examples). I prefer this system as giving them their own column makes it seem like flags are an important facet of the mission, rather than the mainly decorative element that they are. Another thing I would be interested in seeing is which countries sent troops to each mission, but adding this might be impractical. Also isn't the second half of this page identical to List of countries where UN peacekeepers are currently deployed, perhaps the two pages should be merged. - SimonP July 6, 2005 16:20 (UTC)
    • There is a actually is a difference (at least to me). This one is a list of missions, chronologically, so with the date and mission coming first. The other is a list of countries by mission, and therefore is ordered alphabetically, and with country name first. I agree with your idea on the flags, but the problem is that for many there are multiple flags to display for only one location (like Central America, Prevlaka, Kosovo, Golan Heights, etc.). Do you know how I would implement that? Thanks for your help with the conflicts, too. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
      • Okay, I think I just solved the flag issue. I got rid of the "flag" heading, and kept the flag column, but basically embedded within the "location" column, by having the "location" column span two columns. (I don't really know if that explained it well, but take a look). --Dmcdevit July 7, 2005 04:07 (UTC)

Is it possible to employ the {{ref}} and {{note}} system to the two numbered points? If so, please do this. Also, I'm not sure if you need the "as of July 05" thing in the lead. Wikipedia pages get updated on major events as soon as they happen, and it doesn't really need to be said. It would just be one thing you'd have to update the wording of monthly. That's all at the moment. Harro5 July 8, 2005 02:03 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions (and praise)! I got rid of the "as of July," I see your point, it doesn't add anything. And I've just spent half an hour teaching myself to do those notes. There's no good tutorial anywhere! They all assume you basically know what you're doing but just need style help. But after a lot of testing (you can't use preview when testing links, since it just takes you to the saved version without the links added yet) I think I finally got it to work, and they're a nice touch. :) How do you like it? --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 06:57 (UTC)

Hahaha...a gallant effort by no stretch of the imagination. Anyway, they're there now, and you've now learnt a very tricky piece of Wikipedia technology. Think of it as sort of an initiation. Anyway, they add another nice touch. I think that's my advice done, but I'll keep an eye on the peer review and see what happens. Harro5 July 8, 2005 08:16 (UTC)

• Whats the reason for having a link to the website within the table as well as in a list at the bottom of the page, unless I'm missing something the list seems kind of redundant?--nixie 8 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
  • It's just for ease of use really. Navigationally, it's nice to have them right there for more info as you're looking up something. But also, there should be the rferences section for all of them in a central location. I don't think it's a big deal, but we could get rid of them (although it would mean a lot of tedious table-work). --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 23:28 (UTC)
    • I think the links at the bottom of the page should go. They create a huge eyesore at the bottom of the page and the links in the tables seem just fine as the operation name is given already. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Have done, thanks for the input :) --Dmcdevit 01:17, 11 July, 2005 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Ok, a FAC was closed recently about this artcle, and it was starting to get very ugly. Because of that, it was hard to fix some objections. I want to know if what do I need to do in order to get this up to Featured Status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: the FAC can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America and this is the third peer review it has been on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

For those who cannot seem to find out what some objections here, here is the list. I added my comments in the brackets:

• Stability/Edit Wars/VFD's
• Motives need to be known
• Length
• Need to list some members (listed a few)
• Dead links (have been removed)
• Nomination is seen as trolling/nominator (that is beyond my control)
• Original research

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I think they are now addressed: see Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections for a summary. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I know that Wikipedia is not a place to mask offensive words with asterisks, some African Americans could be severely insulted by the mere presence of the phrase "Gay Nigger". The article is also the target of reckless vandalism and has seen many disputes. We need more research on what what the goal of the article is. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It's part of the groups name, so we cannot use stars to mask the name. Most of the time, the group is refered to as the GNAA in the article. However, in the lead section, we mentioned about the terms being racial slur against African-Americans. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Plus, if this becomes Featured, I will make a request to not put this on the front page, since this will be a vandal magnet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It's also very hard to get it to FA status. The topic itself is controversial, even though the article has references and shows as the result of very hard work. The FAC page for GNAA is very big, confusing, and full of arguments. I don't think a second FAC will be very productive. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

We began to get more support votes, and some of the people who objected before changed their minds after their objections have been resolved. Some objections were about the person who nominated the article, we had one symbolic object, and others who objected due to stability. I do not know what the rules are for an article to become "stable." That is also why I am here: still trying to see what I am missing before I send it to FAC again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If I read WP:WIAFA correctly, stability refers to "Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day." While things are getting added day to day to the article, the concept of the article remains the same: Intro, members, attacks and reaction to them. But, if those sections are being changed around on a constant basis, then I can see why the article is not considered stable. As for the edit waring, this is what the above site says "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." I do not see vandalism as an obstacle to the edit waring, since every page gets vandalized in their life on the Wiki. Plus, the last problems took place a month ago, but the issue was resolved when the waring edits left the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"The GNAA have succesfully trolled Mac OS X users several times." What consitutes a "successful" troll? Who establishes the criteria? How can this statement be factually accurate and verfiable? --Tabor 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I will go ahead and removed succesfully. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

I renovated this page a while ago, adding lots of new background on the court's unique place in United States political discourse. We've also been rehabbing and templating all of the United States Court of Appeals pages. Please let me know what you think. --Saucy Intruder 09:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Too heavy on the tables and boxes. Get rid of bullets on the list in the lead. No references. Interesting article, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Could use some examples of court decisions that are more then five to ten years old (I believe the Ninth was overturned in Miranda v. Arizona). I was also surprised that the well known nickname Ninth Circus was not mentioned in the Controversy section. --Allen3 ^talk 18:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That might have been too heavy on the POV. But I definitely should add some additional controversial opinions as well as some older ones. --Saucy Intruder 20:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Russia

There is an error in this article in the classical music section. The statement "Glinka and the other composers of the Mighty Handful is incorrect. Glinka was never a member of the Mighty Handful. There is a mild omission; Tchaikovsky admired and encouraged the Mighty Handful in their creation of distinctly Russian music. TJFWallis 18:04, 18 Feb 2013 {CST}

I would like to see this article get to FAC eventually. Obviously it isn't there but I would like suggestions on how to improve the article. Falphin 15:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Falphin. The article could use some careful editing. For example, there is a sentence that begins, "After Stalin died Soviet Art went into decline after Stalin's death...". Redundantly redundant. :) I'd also like to see a summary paragraph in the Dance section, in addition to the two links. Wasn't the Soviet Union noted for its ballet? Did you want to mention Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky in the music section? — RJH 28 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)

Thanks that is very helpful. I can't do anything tonight as I just got back from being a leader at a local VBS(Vacation Bible School) but will get to it as soon as I can. Falphin 29 June 2005 01:50 (UTC)

• 1. Change the first sentence: "Russian culture began..." sounds a bit odd. Perhaps change to "the first Russian culture to emerge was East Slavic culture...". 2. Expand the introduction into a lead section 3. Add a summary of the history of Russian culture below the "Main article: History of Russian Culture" link. 4. Add a summary to the "Dance" and "Poetry" sections. 5. Consider expanding the size of some of the sub-sections, e.g. the "Cinema" section perhaps should mention the extent of censorship in the Soviet era. 6. When you nominate to FAC, more references are probably a requirement. I assume you used the same references for the individual articles such as Soviet art and for Culture of Russia-just add these references into the Culture of Russia article. Deus Ex 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Need larger lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

• I would love to see this get up to FAC, but it has a ways to go. Here are some suggestions:
  1. The lead needs to include a summary of the entire article. Perhaps include a sentence from each major heading, and tie it all together somehow.
  2. The History of Russian Culture section needs material. I would have said to just include a summary of the History of Russian Culture article, but that article is pretty anemic. I think you'll probably want to write a 2 paragraph summary of the history of Russian Culture (that's a tough task!) and insert it in both articles.
  3. The Icon Art section needs another paragraph or two, and then surely there was Russian art between Icon art and the Avant Garde, so another couple sections are probably warranted. (I'm not very knowledgeable about the history of Russian art, so I can't help much here.)
  4. Architecture of Russia probably should be its own article, and the list of buildings should go there. A summary here would suffice.
  5. The article generally needs some better organization. "Opera" should be a subheading under "Music of Russia", for instance. Personally, I think Art of Russia should be its own article, with a summary here -- or perhaps just Visual art of Russia, with architecture and music seperate -- I'm not sure which.
  6. Dance needs summaries of the two mentioned articles.
  7. The music section could be expanded a little. It focuses too much on opera presently, in my opinion.
  8. I would put Matryoshka dolls under a Crafts of Russia heading, with mentions of other traditional Russian crafts.
  9. The literature section should include a few notable authors, and should sum up Russian literature better.
  • Do those, and I'll look through again. Happy editing! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Denis Law

I've done a lot of work on this article and would like to get it to featured article status. I've gone through the style guidelines and made it conform to them as best I can but I'm still quite new here so I've probably missed something. Any help would be welcome, but I'd especially appreciate comments from people who either aren't British or aren't interested in football, to get an idea of how readable it is to them.

I'm going to start looking for some images to add, but if anyone knows any good sources of non-copyrighted football images, please let me know. Thanks, CTOAGN 14:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Some basic things that I would expect from a biography are missing, is or was he married, did he have children. I'd also like to know a bit more about his role in the 1974 World Cup. The lead should be expanded to 2 or three paragraphs to summarise the whole article. You will probably have trouble getting non-copyrighted images, you may be able to use some under the provision of fair use, if you're local a picture of the statue would be a nice addition --nixie 23:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I've made a start on the changes you suggested and will post here when they're done. CTOAGN 30 June 2005 13:31 (UTC)
  • I've done this now. Sorry it took so long, my computer died so I've had to work on someone else's. CTOAGN 9 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

Does anyone have any final suggestions before this drops off the page? I'm intending to put it into FAC as soon as I can get some images, so any opinions on whether it's ready or not would be very useful. CTOAGN 15:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Kannur

We have made this article by collaborative editing. However , I want to get an independent assesment from othe Wikipedians about suggestions to improve the article. I would be grateful if other point out where this article needs improvement. Sumal(59.177.27.122 9 July 2005 02:53 (UTC))

Just a few quick structural comments:

1. The lead section is too short.
2. There are no references, just three extlinks
3. The Aralam Wildlife section needs work. (And looks like it comes from a tourist brochure.)
4. Demography: where do these numbers come from? Also, giving them with such precision is pretty much useless, I bet they're not correct anymore (people are born and die every day...)
5. Too many one-sentence paragraphs; these should be merged.
6. Can we have a few more images? (PD or GFDL, if possible. Do you have any pictures you took yourselves?) What does the landscape look like? About four images in total would be fine for an article of this length.

I'll try to read it more thoroughly next week. Lupo July 9, 2005 09:42 (UTC)

• First separate the district contents from the city contents.
• For the city, read: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities
• For the district, read Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indian districts

This should set you going. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Singapore

Thinking of sending it for FAC again, seeking for suggestions and comments for improvement before I do so. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Good article, some things that probably should be resolved though:

1. . "Although Singapore has relatively warm relations with Malaysia...This however became less of a problem after both countries changed leaders." This needs to be more specific-when did this happen, why exactly did diplomatic relations improve-were the new leaders closer in ideology?
2. "The first records of Singapore were in Chinese texts dating back to the 3rd century"-what exactly does "first records" mean-the first references to Singapore's existence?
3. "During the Malay-Portugal wars in 1617, Singapore was set ablaze by Portuguese troops." Needs a mention of the extent of the damage.
4. In the history section, add a sentence on what happened between 1945-1959-it isn't clear at the moment.
5. "The fledgling nation had to struggle for self-sufficiency...lack of ... natural resources, like oil". Any other important shortages of natural resources except oil? The sentence needs to establish whether other shortages of natural resources were important, or just oil.
6. "Critics claim that Singaporean courts have been favouring the government". If its possible, give an example of on individual or group than has been a critic. Political opposition? The media? Also, do the cases in this paragraph refer to libel and slander cases like the ones mentioned in another paragraph or other cases?
7. Get a better picture than the current one for the Transport section. Perhaps a photo of the outside of a metro train or a metro map.
8. Perhaps move the transport section to directly below the economy section-more logical organisation, since the transport section mentions a lot that relates to the economy, like trade.
9. The photo of the central business district has the visible letters "RGW" on the top left. Is it possible to get a version of this photo without the letters, preferably a higher resolution/less compressed version as well. Deus Ex 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

From my first read through the part about the nanny-state should be removed form the lead, and a more concise section written in the politics section about political and social freedom in Singapore, including the comments about homosexuality from the culture section, the discussion currently in the politics section is poorly organised and is given a disproportionate amount of coverage in the article. Although the laws of Singapore are discussed there in no mention of the judicary, what is the highest court ect. Are there local goverment divisions within Singapore, if so why aren't these outlined? There is no mention of Singapores foreign relations- which regional and multinational organisations does it belong to, does it give foreign aid etc, also there is no mention of the military. Why is language discussed in both the demographics and culture sections? There should be some discussion of the general level of education in the population in the demographics section, which year is school compulsory to, what is the university articipation rate, etc. Any stats quoted should have their sources cited using an inline citation template like Wikipedia:Footnote3 or Wikipedia:Footnote4.--nixie 03:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• At 37kb, it certainaly isn't an enticing read. Summarise it, remove specific instances of incidents. The politics section is too long.
• Right-align the images and reduce their size. It makes it easy to read the text.
• site This site has Singapore's exteme temperatures.
• You could move the international rankings to a new page. It looks messy down there.

I'll review later once again once my concerns are taken care of. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg is the father of moral development and an incredible person. I want his article to be froth with interestingness. if that _is_ a word. ;) JoeSmack (talk) 23:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be too simple? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I mean the length of this article is a bit short. More elaboration is hihgly desirable. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh i totally agree. I've been staring at this article for hours on end, and i need some others to throw some new paint on there. I'd love it if people could expand it a little. Keep in mind there are already articles for things like his stages of moral development and just community schools.JoeSmack (talk) 06:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

An explanation of his 'stage theory' would greatly add to the article (the actual article on the theory is too succinct in itself). Also, what about his critics (e.g., Kohlberg has been criticized from thinking from a 'boy-centered' point of view). And his influence? -- Cugel 08:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I actually specifically took out both those things. stage theory has it's own article, and critisism follows work, and, i suppose, should to that article mostly. a little could be put into his bio article, but keep in mind it isn't Carol Gilligan's article, it's Kohlberg's. anyways, i always felt stage theory was WAY WAY too big to make a 'short blurb' about too.JoeSmack (talk) 13:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

And I realize Kohlberg's stages of moral development right now is too succinct right now. In fact parts are flat out wrong (especially around level 7 stuff), and that is the next big project for me and a friend I am cajoling into re-writing the article.JoeSmack (talk) 13:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Salt Lake City, Utah

This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past (User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!

Most recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive4 bob rulz 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

From the brief look I took:

• We could improve the flow of the geography section. As it stands, there are a few short and/or irrelevant sentences which need to be expanded, clarified, and/or merged.
  • We should really state how often the lake stink phenomenon occurs, if possible. Cities closer to the lake probably enjoy the smell constantly, but in my experience Salt Lake City (more accurately, the suburb I live in) experiences this problem relatively infrequently, perhaps a few times a year. Currently, as well as before my edits, it sounds as if the city has an unpleasant odor all the time. I found a source.
• The lake effect has a major impact on the climate,[3] and should be mentioned in the climate section. Right now it is only briefly touched upon in the sports and recreation section. Of course we have discussed this before, but I just wanted to mention that this info would be useful in this article as well as Great Salt Lake, I am not trying to nag by any means. :) Oops, I was using Firefox's Find feature, but I was not searching for the hyphenated lake-effect, so I missed that in the climate section.
• I'll add a few citation-needed tags as necessary, and try to dig up some sources, but for now I'll just ask that sources be added for the population numbers in the lead. --Lethargy 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Spyware

This has been a relatively popular article (#9 hit on Google for "spyware") and has been cited in mainstream media. User:LGagnon and I have been getting it in shape in the hopes that it can soon become a featured article. It has been broadly stable and uncontroversial, although there was recently a minor issue with link spamming.

In seeking peer review, I'm primarily looking for anything that is noticeably missing from the article. The subject is one about which a lot of people have strong subjective views, but I'd like to know what objective, research-based information people know about that should be added. We already have a lot of references, but any additional ones which are solid research would be most welcome. --FOo 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A few things I recommend doing:

• Expand the History & development section.
• expand and rename the Categories section (maybe "What constitutes spyware"); an in-depth comparison to viruses and worms (and malware in general) may help.
• The Typical examples section seems a bit small. a few more examples (I recommend using very well known spyware) could make it look a bit meatier.
• The User consent and legality section has 2 government links. I highly recommend citing these as done with other references. Similarly, other links without mention in the References section should be formatted for that section (many still remain).
• The Anti-spyware programs section might improve if we mention prevention methods implemented by Javacool Software's SpywareBlaster and SpywareGuard. Both are quite unique amongst anti-spyware programs.
• There's a lot of text with a lot of facts in it; more cited references always helps. What adds more credibility to your article only makes it stronger. :) -- LGagnon 02:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly a listing of databases for anti-spyware research ought to be included. There are many noteable entries missing that pertain to various sections like the O16s, O2s, O3s, O4s, O23s, et al. There are also other noteable spyware/adware database links missing.--Paul Laudanski 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to only add notable and/or the most useful links. We've got a huge External links section already, and we shouldn't let it detract from the encyclopediac purpose of the article. After all, Wikipedia is not a link farm. -- LGagnon 21:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina

This was a featured article candidate, but it lost out, though it has met many, maybe all, of the objections on that list since it was first put on there. It's much too soon to resubmit it, so before I do, I'd like to know what can still be done to improve this article. Toothpaste 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• The civil war is not covered properly. The "US" Navy, do we mean the Norths or Soulths navy? Aside form this no problem to prevent a FAC IMHO. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought that was obvious, since the South had seceded from the U.S., causing the U.S. navy to be practically synonymous with the North's navy. Nevertheless, I'm changing "U.S. Navy" to "North's Navy" but piping the text to U.S. Navy. Toothpaste 18:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • North's Navy' sounds clumsy to me. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

John W. Griffin

Profile of a perennial candidate in Ohio who is on the state school board. References, photo, thorough account. Comments? PedanticallySpeaking 17:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps information on his ideology (if it is definable), and the issues that he has campaigned on. You could also add information on the time between him leaving university and first election as US Representative-when did he join the Democratic Party, how did he get into the position of being a candidate for a federal office (according to the article, he didn't serve in the state legislature previously). Deus Ex 20:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately don't have information on this. I used what was in electronic databases, but they don't have the newspapers back that far. As for ideology, I can't say it came up in any of the articles I read. He's seen as eccentric, even by his own party's leaders. PedanticallySpeaking 21:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois

This article has gone through a previous round of peer review and several failed FACs. After attempting to address several issues relating to the previous FACs, I am wondering if there is anything that has to be done with this article so that it will succeed FAC if it were nominated again. Pentawing^Talk 01:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fix red links, convert "Related topics" lists to prose, eg. 1959 Pan American Games in Chicago, Arlington Park, Chicago Motor Speedway etc etc instead of a bulleted list. — Wackymacs 11:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Pentawing^Talk 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

• This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, a bit long though, some sections like sports can be made a bit shorter. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have attempted to summarize some sections. Is there anything specific that is needed? Pentawing^Talk 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nice work- this has come a long way since the last four times I objected on its FACs. (The time before that, I nominated it.) I think the only remaining issue is that the use of inline citations starts to wane by the end of the article. I think it's sufficient, but some people might think that a near 60kb article should have more than 36 inlines. Overall, though, excellent work. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Review

1. Mos has to be followed (hyphens used as dashes)
2. The climate table can be moved to the climate subarticle.
3. text needs a copyedit to tighten the sentences
4. during the younger Daley's administration have made world headlines – what sort of "world" headlines?
5. =history= is choppy. Sentences needs to flow
6. Beyond local elections, Chicago.. – entire para can be summarised into one sentence. Infact most of the section glosses over the fact that Chicago is a Democratic bastion. Can be summarised.
7. In sites of interest, context needed for Navy Pier
8. most respected -- according to who? (weasel word)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Hong Kong

Well, a lot of improvement has been done; you can see those lovely illustrations which are all drawn by myself. My baby. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• It looks good; very in-depth. You could also add it to the Category:National flags; possibly under a sub-category: "Flags of China"? — RJH 14:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong isn't a country, so isn't really eligible for this category. To my very brief comments: the main thing is that the recent history of the falg seems pretty bare. It sort of just stops after 1959. I don't know if there is anything else to go there - maybe not - but it's a starting point. Thanks. Harro5 05:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • But the 1959 design remained the same till the current version. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither is Flag of Quebec, but it's in a sub-category Category:Flags of Canada. Perhaps a re-org. of the flags categories is needed? — RJH 15:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, must have misread your first comment. I thought you wanted to put Hong Kong in the national flags category. A flags of China category is a good idea, but would there be anything else to put in the category? The Tibetan flag? No point creating bare categories. Harro5 10:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Flag of Macau as well. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hero of Ukraine

Giving myself a break from the Sybian and GNAA articles, I created this article in a span of a few hours. I am trying to see if this article, like its cousin Hero of Belarus, is worthy enough for being a Featured article. Granted, I do not know how many people were given this title, or what grades, but I listed some examples I found via Google. (Though, most people I found were atheletes, like Vatili Klitcho). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I also thank User:Irpen for helping me on this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Boring. The article as a whole looks OK, but I don't think it qualifies in its present form for a Features article. Incidentally, I was very bored while reading it. Nothing like that happened to me with features articles. "Regulations" section is too dense and I stopped reading the article closely in the middle of it. I'll try to provide more specific comments in Talk:Hero of Ukraine. Sashazlv 04:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I created it in a few hours, so I know there is some clean-up I need to perform. Also, I cannot wait to hear your comments at the talk page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems fine overall; I don't think it really needs kicking up a knotch -- it's usually the stories of the medal winners that are more interesting anyway. Please add one or two appropriate categories. I know there are cat.'s for medals and such. Thanks. — RJH 14:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will add a few categories. There has been a few things on the talk page I need to fix, but my skills in Ukrainian are not that great. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have a feeling you like medals :) Looks good, but I'd like to see more on history/Example recipients. As this is fairly new medal, I guess we can't have as much history as Virtuti Militari, but perhaps a complete list of receipients would be in our reach? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I am working with Sashazlv right now on the history and the legal statutes. There is not much history, since I have no clue when it was first awarded and I also have no clue on every single person who has been given the title. I was told of two people last night, but as I told Sashazlv, everything related to Leonid Kuchma was erased from the Ukrainian Presidential website. And yes, I do like medals :). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sashazlv has been looking up people who have been awarded the title. I think he found everyone in 2005, and I think he is still working on 2004. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Plan de Sánchez massacre

A particularly nasty massacre from 1980s Guatemala, and the subject of an important Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling just last year (largest financial award ever). The anniversary is later this month, too (18th). I'd like to see if it could be dragged up to WP:FA status: there are precious few Latin American featured articles and, as far as I can see, no Guatemalan ones. –Hajor 1 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

• Small thing. There's no pics! The map is relevant for setting a context, and I know it would be hard to find relevant photos, but please try and scrounge something. It's awful hard to read an article that long on the net if there's nothing to look at. Harro5 July 3, 2005 09:46 (UTC)

• Very good point, thanks. I'll try. –Hajor 3 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

• Also the redlinks are a little distracting. Sorry I can't be more help; I'm woefully ignorant on the subject matter or I'd write up some stubs. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

• That shouldn't be too difficult; thanks for calling my attention to it. (Haven't got any pictures, have you?) –Hajor 4 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• The lead is far too short, it needs to summarise the content of the article. What referencing system does the article use?--nixie 12:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's close. As the others have said, the lead needs to summarize the article in a few paragraphs, and the references need to be tightened up. For images, you might look at the commemorations shown here, for which you might want to write the webmaster and ask permission to license them under the GFDL. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've covered the redlinks (all but 2), and greatly expanded the lead section. The references are using in-line links (with paragraph numbers specified when the link is to a particular section of a long document; otherwises, unqualified auto-numbered ext lks). I did have a look at this {{FN3| business, but found it impenetrable and the final presentation, with superscripts disrupting line spacing, unfortunate. The main source documents are listed in the ==Refs & Ext Lks== section. By "tightening up" -- what, exactly? Date accessed? What else? W/r/t the pictures (nice site, btw; thanks, Quadell, and for the encouragement, too), I'm in a bit of a quandary. I'm a firm believer that fair use is cheating, but I'm also not a great fan of sending unsolicited e-mails in which I have to explain just what the heck this "GFDL" thing is. It's definitely there at the back of my mind, however. –Hajor 17:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

L. Frank Baum

I think this is a very good article (much of which was written by Woggly). I have gone in and added a bibliography of Baum's books, as well as a reference section with a couple of biographies of Baum I have read which pretty much verify everything in the article. I guess I would like some direction to get this article to FA status. --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Some suggestions:

1. Add more dates, try and improve on just saying "later"-what year was he married, what year did he move to South Dakota, add the year he wrote his first book (Father Goose (1899))
2. Add something/a section about his literary style, context within other contemporary children's literature, and his influence, if possible.
3. Move the "Miscellaneous anecdotes" section (i.e. trivia) to below the "Baum's politics" section (as it is the least important section)
4. Perhaps a short description of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, after all it is what he is primarily remembered for-the memorable characters for example, and brief references to when it was adpated to theatre and cinema.
5. A Lead section is usually required for a featured article, but in this case, I'm not sure the introduction needs to be any longer. Deus Ex 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

John III of Portugal

This article needs a total check ragarding language, quotation criteria and several other aspects like images. The objective is to make it a featured article. I'm willing to collaborate. Thanks. --Gameiro 19:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John III of Portugal. In future, submit here first, address comments, then archive and submit to FAC. Happy editing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone help listing things where the article needs to improve?--Gameiro 02:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Adress my above objections and let me know when this is done, and I shall review it again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Dogpatch USA

For the archived peer review of this article see Dogpatch USA Peer Review Archive 1
This article is near feature status. Only a few problems with sentence structure, reference, and may be a few italics problems. Hoping it will stay here a week or two and then become featured.--The_stuart 13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A good article, and it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, but there are still some problems. The sentence "a kaleidoscope of characters and events would unexpectedly conspire to transform the pot of gold at the end of the Dogpatch rainbow into a financial roller coaster ride which eventually ended in failure" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The images also need more information. Some like Image:Dogpatch USA.JPG have copyright information at all. Others just have permission to be used in Wikipedia. Permission for use in Wikipedia is not enough. We need explicit permission that an image can be released under the GFDL. More photos of the park itself, rather than just advertisements, would add to the article. Trivia sections are also bad form. The points there should either be merged elsewhere or deleted. - SimonP 13:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted the creator of the image and gotten him to release it into the public domain. I have also changed the lead to reflect a more "encyclopedic" tone. The trivia section, however, is kind of a difficult matter because the facts it lists are important yet don't seem to fit into the article anywhere.--The_stuart 21:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I integrated the trivia section, any other suggestions?--The_stuart 18:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Enzyme

I think this biological article pretty informative, with clear illustrations. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Great article! The Edward Buchner image could do with a brief description as a subtitle, and maybe some of the categories need combining --PopUpPirate 11:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestion? :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at recategorizing and simplifying the structure --PopUpPirate 17:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia (ballet)

Ballet isn't the most popular of topics, so this page gets very little traffic. Basically just need more opinions on what can still be improved, hopefully up to FA standard. -- Rmrfstar 7 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

You are very correct that Wikipedia coverage in this area is poor, but the article Sylvia is good work. I would like to see more detail. The style section is good but rather brief. I would like to see a synopsis of the score as well like the one of the plot, and perhaps more technical information on the music. Similarly with the choreographies I would like to see how the versions differed and how they portrayed each scene. - SimonP July 7, 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the suggestions! I added a bit to the Style section and also broke it up into Music and Choreography subsections, I'm not done with that yet though. About your last comment, I don't know how we would be able to compare different choreographies with that level of detail, they're copyrighted, (at least Ashton's is), I think... I'll look into it though. -- Rmrfstar 7 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean "synopsis of the score"? There is a list of "Musical scenes" the names of which describe where/how they're used. I did add a sound clip (coincidently from the same section as the sheet music) to help readers get a better feel for the music. -- Rmrfstar 7 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

Good work so far. By "synopsis of the score" I meant something similar to the movement by movement description you'll find in most symphony articles (see Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven) for a good example of this). - SimonP July 8, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Ahh, I don't think I know enough about music write that, at least presently. I'll see if I can get a complete performance of the score so I can at least attempt it (I've been looking for one). -- Rmrfstar 8 July 2005 04:28 (UTC) what was I thinking, that would be original research... I made a comprehensive todo for the talk page which should be reviewed I think. -- Rmrfstar 01:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there have been published works analyzing the score, this would relieve both the original research concern and the difficulties with writing a technical piece on music (I would not be confident in doing so myself). The other option is to ask one of our resident music experts to lend a hand, we have many who are very able in this area. To find one try looking through some page histories in Category:Ballets and Category:Symphonies and see who it is that is adding the technical information. For instance the great information The Rite of Spring seems to mainly be the work of Hyacinth and Camembert. - SimonP 14:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I went to the public library today, and found many such analysis of scores, but none describing Sylvia's. Though ballet is not very well known, I expected at least some analysis of the score, the best-recieved aspect of the ballet. I have also searched extensively online and found nothing with which to fill the section. I shall look amongst my friends and fellow wikipedians for someone to write the musical synopsis section, (and go to another library). -- Rmrfstar 02:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Update I've been quite busy in the real world and haven't had a chance to work significantly on Sylvia recently. I have however found a few great print sources (focusing on the music) which shall be incorporated into the article maybe this weekend... -- Rmrfstar 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)