Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than one month.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
A through copy-edit for proper usage and grammar would be helpful. Beware of snake sentences, especially. Could the second picture of the iconic banner be moved to a better position within the article? Right now it and the TOC are causing a large break in the text between the introduction and the first section. And more inline citations would be helpful -- perhaps some of the external links could be cited and then become references? -Fsotrain09 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One comment about the cover of Time: the use of a magazine cover in an article that doesn't talk about that issue, but just uses it as an illustration, doesn't fall under the fair use that Wikipedia fair use policy allows. You might want to expand the fair use claim in the image. This isn't enforced for FA, but I did notice this for my own current FAC and fixed it for a couple of images. Take a look at this image, at the "Rationale for fair use" section, and you'll see what I mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs)
I'm not a fair use expert, so what I did was ask about this at the fair use project talk page. Here's that discussion; it looks to me from this as if the image page is where the fair use claim should live. I'm not completely clear that your use is fair use, in this case; it does look as if you are illustrating with it. Or are you using it as supporting evidence of Walesa's prominence at that time? That would be good enough, I think. Mike Christie 11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot more inline references to be ready for FAC. --Peter Andersen 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So few inline references might prove insufficient for a FA-level article. Additionally, there are some inline external links that should be converted into refs. There are at least 9 more o
Some FAC reviewers are fond of detailed fair-use rationales for each non-PD pic.
I would like to see a "criticisms" section somewhere. No one is perfect, and especially politicians... -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF) 10:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for criticism, I agree, but I think this would rather belong in the main article (which is certainly not GA-near, and this is why I split the good history section fromt he otherwise uncomplete article). This is just 'history of...', and I don't think it needs 'criticism of...' section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, remove the unnecessary red borders. DrWho42 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments below. Overall the article is in fair shape.
Lead-in: what is "the ride"? A Disneyland ride? Generally I think the lead-in could be shortened -- some of the contents seem more suitable to the body of the article, such as the paragraph about his personal characteristics. I don't know anything about this movie, and I think by the end of the lead-in I should know more than I do -- e.g. is Biff the hero? A villain? A minor character? I think a brief note on the relevance to Thomas Wilson's career would be good, too; was this a breakthrough role for Wilson? Or a minor role for a major actor? Finally, it would be nice to get rid of that "spoiler warning" in the lead, but I'm not sure that that's possible for a fictional character.
Pre-Back to the Future: I'd use "grandmother" instead of "grandma" for an encyclopaedia article. It would be good to cite sources for the deductions and so forth about the timeline of events in his life. You currently have no footnotes; let me know if you need help formatting them -- they can be tricky. You refer to draft scripts; have these been published? If so it would be good to cite them, and even list them or point to another article about them. This applies to the later sections too; I won't repeat it below. An overall list of sources, in addition to the references, wouldn't hurt, as a separate section later in the article. Where is Mason Street -- in Hill Valley? You don't actually say that he still lives there. I assume this is not a real street.
Back to the Future: After reading this, I understand Biff's role among the main characters. I don't need a detailed plot synopsis earlier than this, but as I said above I think by the time I get here I should already know he's the villain (or perhaps could be described as the main oppositional character to the hero and his father). I also think some explanation of "original timeline" is necessary; I've read enough sf to understand all the implications of this quickly, but a general reader may have read no sf. You can link to an article with more details about time-travel paradoxes if you think that's appropriate, but at least a sentence of explanation about what's going on here is needed.
I have some other comments on wording, but I'll wait till you've responded. Hope this is useful. Mike Christie 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to delete page has led me to edit. I have done what I can, but I do not know what else to do to prevent deletion. I have permission from Director of LA Freewaves to create page and freely use information and materials contained within website. I attempted to assert this on WP:CP but I do not know what else to do. Thanks for any help to make page meet wikipedia criteria.--Freewaves 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am quite pleased with the progress you made on it; I am quite proud of you. However, try and add some history to the various exhibitions, eg year it was launched, planning time, just the basic facts. --JB Adder | Talk 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit of information to the article recently gleaned from the museum housed there. I'd like to know how and where this article can be improved. Any suggestions are welcome! Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some brief notes:
Overall it's pretty brief. Perhaps you could find some more interesting history and give a longer description of the 'ground floor room panelling' and the 'long gallery'? Could you give a more detailed description of the interior of the house? How many square metres is it?
There are no references. Please use inline citations to provide sources for the material.
The History section should be moved before the architecture, as is the convention.
Rather than a dash (-) as a sentence break, please use the mdash character (HTML: —).
'commisioned' appears to be missing an 's', unless that's how its spelled over there.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
I've added a reference section and included the images of england website - lot's of juicy information there to include (but don't violate copyright)
The article might benefit from information about the buildings context - eg. the buttermarket area - why was this so called - is it contemporary to ancient house - what was the relationship of the building to it's surroundings over time. etc.
More pictures - it would be great if you could snap the four panels of the pargeting so we can see the tudor view of the world for ourselves.
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions so far, have been busy IRL lately, so haven't had the time or energy. Will work on the article more soon. Cheers. Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently a very well written, and generally good article. However, its lacking references, which is holding it back from becoming featured. I'm sure it needs something else though, anyone care to comment on how it can be improved? — Wackymacs 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section "The original Apple II" is very lengthy and should be broken down into subsections. Maybe one section for the 'standard' equipment and one section on the design process.
There's a faint air of fanboyism in the history section, especially in the discussion of Woz and his "design sensibility".
The history section says that "quirky and brilliant programmers" were the platform's "lifeblood" but the lead emphasizes the use of the Apple II by non-experts in business and education. Somewhere there needs to be a link between these two things; explicitly state that one reason for the Apple II's popularity with non-experts was the wide range of software distributed for it. (I assume that's the case; I've never been a Mac person and I'm not terribly familiar with the history.)
The "Models" section is very long - since many of these models actually have their own articles, consider condensing and summarizing the material in this one to preserve readability.
There's not much coverage of the marketing of the Apple II. How, where, and to whom was it advertised? Did it ever ship with a monitor or other peripherals? Was the educational popularity propelled by discount pricing on the hardware? Etc.
On similar lines, the "Industry impact" section mentions that Apple II's were often bought just to run VisiCalc - what were the other options? How long was VisiCalc Apple II-only? Did Apple's later products really compete directly with the Apple II or were they targeting other markets?
Any criticisms of the Apple II that are relevant and notable?
Some things I noticed just in the "Origins" section:
The original retail prices should be cited.
Calling Wozniak by his nickname "Woz" is too chummy. The nickname can be mentioned at his own article, but here it should be spelled out "Wozniak" each time.
"Woz laid out the circuit board several times..." I am not sure what "laid out" means here (Formulated a design? Physically placed the computer parts in front of himself to examine? Explained to others?) and the whole sentence is a bit awkward.
"The Apple II's brilliant quirks served as a gauntlet that drew scores of equally quirky and brilliant programmers to the platform: these people became the Apple II's lifeblood." This sentence seems out of place in a neutral encyclopedia article, and as Opabinia notes, it seems at cross-purposes with the machine's previously stated aims.
Where were these computers physically assembled? Or is this not particularly relevant?
I'd like some suggestions in expanding this page. Please ignore the inline reference issue for now (I'll add them once the copyediting is done). Any suggestions for what sort of free images I can add here? Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the article. There are only few points which I could come up with.
In the lead - "The Indian observatory however, is located in the town..." - I could not make out which Indian observatory is being talked about. A wikilink would help.
In the history section - "Bombay time was maintained until 1955". But the very next sentence says that the Indian government established IST as the official time in 1947. So does that mean that Bombay did not follow IST for 8 years after independence?
In the Problems section - Who were the researchers in 1980? Independent or government? What happened to the suggestion made by them?
In the Time signals section - ATA is linked to a disambiguation page.
That's all I could come up with. This is my first comment at a peer review of an article. Hope some of the points raised by me are valid. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Yes, the points are perfectly valid. I'll reply to each:
Indian observatory – I'm still to get credible data on this... will try and fix soon
Yes, Bombay did not use IST till 1955. I'll try and word it better.
Unfortunately my source [1] does not mention who the researchers were. Nothing concrete emerged out of it, and I've added it to the text. Thanks!
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The locator map overlaps the lead text on my browser. Please check. As for the images, perhaps an enlarged crop of Image:Timezones.png? Also, you could add something about how the correct time is transferred to the people - about 174 on BSNL et al.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made a new map. Added a cropped version, added some info on phone and times. =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting peer review as step towards Featured Article Status - I feel the article, while brief, meets the FA standards. --Trödel 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from repeating the automated suggestions I have very little to add, It is well-written, concise, and comprehensively referenced. I think it will struggle in FAC review though, because of the length. Some comments:
Thalidomide is capitalized once and lowercase the rest of the time.
Does Sulfanilamide need to be capitalized? If it does, it possibly links to the wrong article (doesn't make much sense in this context)
It would be good to replace some instances of "Kelsey" and "Geiling" in the second section with "he" or "she" for readability.
The "Early career and marriage" section is perhaps a little too short to merit its own section, but it is hard to see how you could rearrange it, as it doesn't fit well in either the preceding or following sections
Although thalidomide has its own article, a little background and some relevant detail wouldn't go amiss - for instance the manufacturer (Grünenthal?) isn't even mentioned by name and the purpose of the drug isn't explained.
A bit more detail on her role in withholding approval would be helpful. Was it solely her responsibility? Was the additional information ever provided? What form did the pressure from the manufacturer take? Perhaps some more detail on what the English study involved.
The last section is very brief. I suspect there is more detail that could be added here (perhaps by combining the awards section as two of these are awarded late in her career).
There are a couple of sentences that would benefit from copyediting. For example: "Kelsey returned to her work at the FDA.", "..continued to work" would be better here unless you can point to her leaving the FDA earlier.
Thx - I will work on these suggestions over the next few days - my biggest concern for FAC - is the length - --Trödel 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the length of the article is just fine. The FAC criteria states only that an article needs to be of "appropriate length", not some specific number of kBytes. Just adding bloat to meet some ill-defined quota doesn't make for a great article, IMO. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx - I am against bloat - however, as I suspected there is more to the story and to the life of Kelsey - I have been researching offline and found one good source of additional information about Kelsey's motivations and the other details behind the thalidomide application, and am looking for more about the remainder of Kelsey's career at the FDA - as such a prominent person early on - and one of only 6 doctors on staff at the time of the passage of the legistlation - it stands to reason she had an impact - I just need to find good sources to verify that hunch :) --Trödel 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't suggesting padding. A short article can meet the standards for FA but it can raise questions of comprehensiveness that don't come up as often with long articles. Yomanganitalk 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True - that will be a better goal anyway - to make sure the article is comprehensive --Trödel 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and has improved a lot. We'd like to hear comments about it. Thanks! NCursework 15:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a little short - seems like it should include diagnostic methods and prevalence info at least. Also, the mention of resection before 1mm - I assume that's a statistical association, but it sounds rather arbitrary and probably needs a citation.
I tried to fix it, found some references. Please have a look. NCursework 08:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one question: the first sentence says melanoma is a malignant tumor, but later in the lead there's a mention of "premalignant" melanoma. Is it necessarily malignant, and if so, is there a separate term for the early stages? Opabinia regalis 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it: "...suspicious of a malignant melanoma or a premalignant lesion" NCursework 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many sections are quite listy. The staging section obviously should be a list, but even some of the prose sections - History and Epidemiology especially - read like a series of only somewhat related sentences rather than a coherent story. This may be because research hasn't told a very coherent story yet, but it should still be synthesized more clearly if possible. "Prevention" should definitely be prose, except the "mnemonic" (where did that come from anyway?)
The ABCDE mnemonic comes from the Asymmetrical, Border, Color, Diameter, Evolution words. But the sections says "(see "ABCDE" mnemonic below.)" because in the list below these letters are bold too. NCursework 08:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I meant what's the source for the mnemonic/who uses it. Opabinia regalis 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, everybody (medical students, doctors, scientists). I can't show you exact reference for it, because there isn't any. But everybody uses it. NCursework 18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix Epidemiology section. In my opinion, History is correct, but we can wait for someone else to comment. NCursework 08:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think epidemiology looks pretty good. On second glance my only real problem with the history section is the first sentence: "While there is little serious doubt that melanoma is not a relatively new disease..." is just too many double negatives and qualifiers in one place. Is there any serious doubt? Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about it: 'While melanoma is not a relatively new disease'? NCursework 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better, but do you really need "relatively"? Is there any intended comparison to the historicity (is that a word?) of other cancers? Opabinia regalis 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is NOT a new disease, just we weren't so brave to write it like that. But I removed relatively and inserted a reference (which can't be found on the net, it's from 1966) - On the antiquity of melanoma. NCursework 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to convert the Prevention section into prose. Please have a look. NCursework 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. Only suggestion would be an explanation of the difference between "primary" and "secondary" prevention (avoidance and vigilance?) - when I tried to look it up I discovered our prevention article is quite poor. Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I really can't see why do we need this primary-secondary section names, without these the prevention section would be total too. Anyway I can put avoidance and vigilance next to the primary and secondary words. NCursework 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are "avoidance" and "vigilance" really good restatements of the meanings? That was my guess from the context, but I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about medical usage than I am. I'd agree that the distinction isn't critical to the section's flow. Opabinia regalis 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there is no need for these subsections. I removed primary and secondary words. NCursework 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a more dramatic image than Image:WB032021.JPG? Or maybe just touch up the color on this one?
I sent a letter to the American Academy of Dermatology to ask permission for their images. I'm waiting for the answer. NCursework 08:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of emphasis on sun damage and sunburn as risk factors, but most people have had a peeling sunburn at some point in their lives - maybe flesh out the statistics on this, or find some relative-risk data?
I found a reference for this sentence: "Occasional extreme sun exposure (resulting in "sunburn") is causally related to melanoma." The reference is a study: Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Hope it will be enough. :) NCursework 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that someone's going to read the article and think "Holy crap! I had a sunburn once; now I'm going to get skin cancer and die!" Is there some data to the effect of "x level of exposure to UV radiation increases melanoma risk by y%"?
I haven't found any really relevant reference, maybe one, please have a look: [2]. NCursework 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get the full text, but the abstract looks pretty statistical for reassuring the common hypochondriac. On the other hand, it's not Wikipedia's job to reassure hypochondriacs, so I don't think this is too critical. Opabinia regalis 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is well-referenced, but there's a few statements in the epidemiology section especially that don't have citations - like the "Australia" data and the "British study".
I wonder if it's possible to get a slide of normal tissue for comparison? (Also, am I right in reading the image descriptions that these are all the same case?) Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no normal skin histology image in Wikipedia, neither in Commons. Yes, these are the same case. NCursework 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This radiation causes errors in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of cells, making them go through mitosis (cell division) at an unhealthy rate. " -- Not very clear. I assume the increased mitosis rate thing refers to inappropriate cell division after the tumor has formed, but the sentence implies that radiation damage itself accelerates mitosis rates, which as far as I know is not correct. It should be explicitly stated that radiation damage induces mutations, which can accumulate as cell division proceeds to create inappropriately-dividing cancerous cells.
I made a couple of minor clarifications to this section. Feel free to rewrite if you think it's too detailed. Opabinia regalis 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the something about melanoma metastases specifically that makes them more difficult to treat? Are they just difficult to detect, or are they more dangerous in some way than metastases from other types of cancers?
It's very hard to detect metastasis, it sends cells into nearly every part of the body. NCursework 09:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me it sounds like the article is saying metastases of melanoma specifically are more deadly than metastases of other cancers. Is that the case? (In either case, it's not critical but it might be interesting to see comparisons in prevalence and survival rates to other common cancers.) Opabinia regalis 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The metastasis of melanoma is one of the worst ones, but I couldn't find relevant reference. :( NCursework 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found uploaded 4 images. NCursework 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some more info on familial melanoma and genetics of melanoma is probably needed. I suppose there has been some recent research in this area that is not fully reflected in the article. Kpjas 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs expansion; it's pretty skimpy at the moment. At least it should mention that the trinucleotide repeat leads to a polyglutamine region in the huntingtin protein; the prevalence of the disease; the most common/characteristic symptoms; and the fact that it is not curable.
Have changed with your suggestions it might be too long now!Leevanjackson 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intro to the "Symptoms and signs" section is awkwardly written.(Incidentally, is there a reason not to use the more common "signs and symptoms"?)
No reason. I changed it to "Signs and symptoms". List should rather be in prose. NCursework 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have reworded the intro, hope its better Leevanjackson 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the content, "Genetics" seems like it would logically precede "Pathophysiology" and possibly even "Diagnosis". The fact that children of HD sufferers are at risk of having HD doesn't really have context until the genetic explanation. Also, there's some redundancy between "Genetics" and "Pathophysiology" that should be resolved - both mention chromosome 4, for example.
yep now its in a more logical order still in keeping with the medical style manual Leevanjackson 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both "Genetics" and "Pathophysiology" could use some writing tweaks for clarity:
"loss of medium spiny neurons, a GABAergic result" -- contextless without at minimum a wikilink to GABA
"Genetically, huntingtin is found on chromosome 4, as are CAG repeats." -- well, I would hope the CAG repeats are on the same chromosome as the gene they're in. Unless you mean that CAG repeats also occur in other genes on chromosome 4? (That would be interesting, but I've never heard it before.)
Your right it didn't make sense and without a citation, 'tis removed, explained in genetics anyway Leevanjackson 09:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"can lead to dysfunction of the proteosome system. This mitochondrial dysfunction... "-- Besides the typo ("proteasome"), the use of "this" isn't terribly clear. Does the aggregation have effects on both the proteasome and the mitochondria, or is the proteasomal deficiency the direct cause of mitochondrial dysfunction? If so, what is the mechanism?
fixed typo, but cant quite work out the mitochondrial/proteasome dysfunction Leevanjackson 09:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's mention of the "nanotube" idea but no discussion of amyloid itself - this would be a good connection to make with other protein misfolding diseases.
The "Genetics" section mentions that repeat number becomes unstable after 35 repeats and causes disease after 40. It should either be briefly explained why the DNA replication machinery has difficulty with repetitive sequences, or at least wikilink to DNA replication so readers can learn about it there.
It would be interesting to expand on the age-of-onset phenomenon, which I think is a matter of interest in popular descriptions of the disease. IIRC it has been suggested that the "sharp cutoff" in number of repeats needed to create disease is an effect of human lifespan - ie 30 repeats don't cause disease because the aggregation is slow enough that the person dies before it has a neurodegenerative effect. Unfortunately I can't find the paper I'm thinking of, but here is a related paper that expands on the biophysical origins of the effect.
The "Others" section under management is very listy.
The "Epidemiology" section could use some expansion if the data is available. Is it more prevalent in certain populations or ethnic groups? The prevalence statement also needs a citation, and there are weasel words in the ethics section.
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
came in very useful, have applied many of its suggestionsLeevanjackson 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, relatively concise article. I think it could use another pass to reduce jargon so that non-biologists / doctors are better able to understand it. But I would also like to see more references, especially peer-reviewed sources (journals/books are forever, web sites come and go). Satyrium 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
archived discussion
I'm trying to get the article featured. I'm going to fix all {{fact}}'s, and copyedit any sloppy sections. What is the article missing? What needs to go? Are there any stubbish sections to address? Thanks. -- Selmo(talk) 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of Vancouver, I immediately recognise it for having films shot there. Why is it so popular then? Wiki-newbie 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article I've been working on, Hollywood North answers some of those questions. I have yet to work it into the Vancouver article though. Mkdwtalk 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article, thanks to User:AnonEMouse, is well sourced and written. I would like to see this article become a featured article (or at least a "Good Article"). Therefore I am soliciting comments as to what needs to be done in order to get to that point. Any constructive feedback is appreciated. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mailer_diablo! I have gone through and have done the following: expanded the lead paragraph, removed duplicate links, added the {{persondata}} template, added the non-breaking spaces between the number and measurement, fixed the headings, added footnotes and copyedited. (Obviously, a second pair of eyes wouldn't hurt.) I didn't put a caption on the picture because the picture is in the infobox and it's clearly an image of the subject in question. Also, all the information we can find is already in the article, so unless there are new developments with this performer, then we can't expand it any further. If there are any other comments, questions, or concerns regarding the article, feel free to make them! Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A word to the wise, poor Joe: YOU SEEM OBSESSED, JOE, WITH THE WORD "PORNOGRAPHIC," WHICH YOU USE SO REDUNDANTLY AS TO BE ABSURD.
YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY OUT TO SMEAR THIS GIRL IN THE WAY YOU HAVE REWRITTEN THE LEAD. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.
... In addition, Joe Beaudoin, who has been obsessed with this article for some time and loves to use the word pornography, has now put false information into the lead which he keeps reinserting. Vicca retired from porn movies in 2000. Poor Joe has her making movies with Nikita until 2002. Totally wrong.
UPDATE: I see that Joe has removed some comments here, from me and another writer.. THAT is vandalism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.88.92 (talk • contribs) 14 August, 2006.
You sir are mistaken, as I haven't removed any comments from here. Also, pornography was her profession, so I'm not going to sugarcoat it with politically correct terminology or bloated subjective terms like "porn star". Now, maybe I added one too many instances of "pornographic' in the lead paragraph, but you could have easily pointed this out without the personal attacks against my person. Clearly, it is you who belive you have ownership of the article, and belive that you do not have to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. (For instance, your unwillingness to help us in providing us your sources for the article prior to User:AnonEMouse's assistance in getting it sourced.) I am merely trying to develop the articles as I see them, which is something I am not ashamed of. Now, if you have any other concerns, please direct them at the Vicca talk page. Thank you for your comments. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 07:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts...
The extra bold for her stage names feels like overkill...
especially given the glaring absence of her real name. ("Vicca" sounds like a pseudonym, and surely she had a family name at some point.)
Her notability seems suspect to me. The AVN Award, frankly, is the only really solid evidence of notability, IMO. (The fact that her films are notable doesn't automatically mean that she is notable.) This is part of a larger concern I have: there's really not that much material here. What's the goal of this peer review? GA status? You're probably there. FA status? There's simply not enough material of note.
"...won the 2000 Hot d'Or as Best American Movie at the Cannes Film Festival." This makes it sound as though the Hot d'Or is awarded by the Cannes Film Festival. My understanding is that it is announced at the same time as the Cannes Film Festival, in order to capitalize on the CFF's media coverage, but is not affiliated with it. This is like saying that Halle Berry proudly accepted her Razzie at the Academy Awards... technically true, but unacceptably misleading to anyone not familiar with the award. Peirigill 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is GA status at best. FA is unattainable for this article at this point. I did go ahead and remove the bolding of the additional stage names. I'll also clear up the Hot d'Or reference. Thanks for the feedback Peirigill! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has undergone dramatic improvement in the last two months or so, and I'm sort of stuck on how to improve it further. I suspect there's a need for a little more history and more economy, but I'm not sure - and beyond that, I'm really not sure. There's a lot of problems in working out what belongs here given its relationship to Toronto. Anyways, I want to keep pushing it up to at least good status, so I really appreciate any comments. I took it past Requests for Feedback, but what I got there was that it looked pretty decent, a few minor points I worked on were gained. So I'm trying it here. I would really appreciate any feedback I can get.
WilyD 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions WilyD 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed. Six months or so ago, this article was really quite poor, notable mainly for linkspam and reversion wars. I commend the editors who have put the time and effort necessary to bring it to this level. I am going to do some very minor copyediting, rather than list comments on wording and sentence structure here (revert anything objectionable). Other than that, my only comments are:
- Some thought might be given to making the images somewhat larger.
- The Toronto Zoo is one of Scarborough's major attractions. Too bad the image used in this article is of the zoo's admission booths. I understand the problem, though -- I couldn't locate a better image here on in the Commons. You may wish to consider posting over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto to see if anyone can upload some better images.
- I found the reference to Canada Post in the lead paragraph to be odd. Such a trivial piece of information for the opening paragraph. Moreover, it's hardly unique to Scarborough -- Canada Post quite often uses names of former municipalities (i.e. Kanata) or even areas that were never separate municipalities (i.e Downsview) for postal addresses. Since it's an administrative practice of Canada Post throughout the country, and has nothing to do with Scarborough per se, it seems unusual to give it such prominence in the article. If the consensus is to retain the information in the lead paragraph, however, then thought should be given to rewording it because it is somewhat unclear (perhaps "..., and the name continues to be used for postal addresses.").
- The lead paragraph requires some indication of why Scarborough is notable or interesting. Something like "Scarborough is known for its multicultural character, and is said to be the greenest and leafiest part of Toronto" (referencing information detailed later in the article). Otherwhise, an opening para. that focuses solely on amalgamation and Scarborough's boundaries is somewhat bland. Skeezix1000 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Okay, thanks for the tips. As far as photos go, I agree it's not the best Zoo picture. Getting good pictures is likely to be nontrivial, since the Zoo admission price isn't chump change. I may have some old ones somewhere. But that'll take time to address.
-I share your sentiment about the Canada post reference a bit. I think it may be there more because it's unclear where else to put it - I would welcome suggestions. Perhaps it can be dropped altogether, but even though this doesn't make it unique to Canadian communities, it sheds light on an apparent elevated status of community that Scarborough gets - even if many others do to.
-As for the blandness of the opening, I will admit it has been left essentially untouched during the recent revisions of the articles, and could use some reworking. Thanks
Well, I've reworked the opening, but I'm still not satisfied. WilyD 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-On the issue of image size - I'm not sure if there's a good way to work with different displays. All the images are just thumb with no size specified - I had hoped that this would lead to a semi-smart display pattern - am I nuts? is there a good way to do it, or just guess? WilyD 01:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is certainly alot better than it used to be. However, it reads a little bit like a travelogue, ie. it's kind of bland. There is no real discussion of the urban and social problems that occur in Scarborough. I also note that the article history shows there is still an apologist for the article still at work, namely User:Dscarborough, who still persists in removing anything that he perceives as a negative comment. Until that stops the article will lack balance. --Bombycil 23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what kind of discussion you're looking for - one of the real problems I find myself in continuously in this article is that with Scarborough as a community in Toronto, things that affect Scarborough in a way un-unique from how they affect Toronto are hard to work with - I never have any idea of how deep to go into them, whether to just link to the Toronto discussion or what.
Specific issues that need to be mentioned. I don't think it matters whether these problems are specific to Scarborough or not. They still affect the area and so they should be discussed:
gang related crime, eg. Malvern problems (can be moved to history if necessary)
concentration of immigrant communities within Scarborough
marijuana grow-ops that plague certain neighbourhoods
economic disinvestment in the Warden/Kennedy corridors
development pressures on the Rouge Valley
erosion issues on the Scarborough bluffs
water quality pollution issues on Highland Creek, --Bombycil 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for D, I'm not sure here whether your complaint is fair. Every piece of content he or she has wanted removed was seperately argued against by either myself or User:Mindmatrix. Beyond that, the rest of the content D was opposed to remains in the article. WilyD 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph should be reworded as per Skeezix makes much sense. To Bobmbycil; WilyD and Mindmatrix have endeavoured to competently review every disagreement, and the article is fair and balanced. In fact, if you wanted to list the crime data per police division, that should be done on the larger Toronto page (Toronoto Neighbourhoods?), and you might actually be surprised that '42 Division whrere Malvern is located in, is on a per capita basis, amongst the safest divisions in the entire city' - former 42 Division Sargent Tony Warr. I could call Tony and ask him to email you a direct quote if you would like. Dscarborough 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
.[reply]
malvern gangs are sort of notorious throughout toronto, (at least amongst people i know) so perhaps they should have some mention
I am aiming to make this into a featured article, so advice is appreciated. I've started trying to rewrite it, but there are some problems. Any help is appreciated. --TheM62Manchester 11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyrighted images require a fair use rational - there's at least two such images. WilyD 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first thing we should do is get rid of the fair use images, and then I think we should get rid of the timeline, as it's not that informative and takes up space. --ApolloBoy 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline? The timeline is already it's own article - it can't get any smaller. WilyD 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but I think we should delete it as it's practically redundant. Awards can be mentioned in the main article (i.e. "The Tercel won Award A from 1988-1993). --ApolloBoy 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent much time crafting this article together but feel that it can be improved upon even further.. I believe that, for the channel of SciFi, it has been something comparable to monumental in the shape of things and to this day: we still have those very marathons. I'd really appreciate advice and goals to aim for as to how this article can be strengthened for Good article nomination as well as possibly beyond. With work, I do believe this can be attained. DrWho42 10:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a section or corresponding sections focusing in on the shows featured on each theme? I.e. Creatureland, &c. DrWho42 09:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a list so that looking up what shows aired and in what "theme-day" would be made incredibly easier. List of S.C.I.F.I. World shows, however I'm wondering whether or not referencing would be just or in what way should it be done... Please see either the adjacent Talk page or its entry along the WP Television's Talk pageDrWho42 20:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially want opinions on references and neutrality (mainly looking at the animal welfare aspect). English is not my native language, so a critical look at spelling and grammar is also appreciated. Have done a lot of work on the article, and it is currently the selected article on the Cetaceans portal. I hope to get it to "Good Article" status at least. BabyNuke 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a quick copyedit, but it could do with another pass as I mainly removed redundancy rather than rewriting.
It's let down badly by lack of inline citation - with a topic like this inline citations help counter arguments of bias (and make you think about the statements you make)
Try to avoid 'it is claimed','some people say', 'this is disputed' etc. - give specific examples or don't include the claims.
Some defense of dolphinariums by owners or organizations (if there is any) may help balance the article.
The "suicide" section is very POV at the moment - I'd try to decribe the actions of the dolphin without attributing the action directly (unless you have reliable quotable sources to back up the claims)
You should standardize on a capitalization scheme for the common names of the species - Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans probably has a policy on this.
Thank you for your comments and edits! I will work on the points mentioned. BabyNuke 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first article here on Wikipedia and wanted to know if it is decent and what could be written better about it. All positive critique is welcome and I appreciate any feedback.
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We want to know how RuneScape can be edited in order to attain FA status. It has already passed a GA nom.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section could do with some polishing. The second paragraph, about Gielinor, looks fancrufty. Consider jettisoning the paragraph, moving useful information to the third paragraph (which then becomes the second paragraph). It wouldn't hurt to add another paragraph which summarises the history of the game, reviews it has received and/or its impact on the world/Internet/MMORPG industry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have those things you mentioned in your last suggestion. There's a paragraph on it's history and development and one on its reception. The reception paragraph covers the impact on the world, internet, and MMORPG industry, although more info could be added on that. I'll see what I can find. Also, I'll make the changes to the lead section right now.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote paragraphs, I meant paragraphs in the lead section. Sorry for not explaining clearly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's fine. I'll get to it ASAP.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the lead paragraph that you wanted done. Any more suggestions?--Ed¿Cómo estás? 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has recently passed GA-status but I still think it has some kinks that need to be worked out. I would love to hear some outside opinions on how this can be worked towards a featured article. For an archived peer review, see Archive 1. Sportskido8 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This poor, lonely Peer Review looks like it needs some love. I've noticed some things that might need fixing:
The lead does not state when the franchise changed its name from the Highlanders to the Yankees. It also does not explain the wild card very well (for the non-baseball-savvy), or wikilink an article (not sure if there is one). Done
Known as the Western League until 1899, the AL carried over five of its previous locations and added teams in three East Coast cities, including Baltimore, Maryland. This sentence is a bit unclear. Done
The "Franchise history" section needs some citations. It is also far too long...essentially a copy of the article History of the New York Yankees. I think a large majority of the section can be cut, since one click leads the reader to the same information.
This is after reading only up to "New Owners, A New Home, and a New Name (1913-1922)". I will try to review more later. -RunningOnBrains 01:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some sub-sections which could use a good trim:
New Owners, A New Home, and a New Name (1913-1922): Has an awful lot of newspaper headlines and specific instances where the word "Yankee" appeared in the media, most of which could be lost without impact to the article. Also, the paragraph on the "NY" logo could go, just leaving the note about the officiality of the franchise names.
The Ruth and Gehrig era and the Stadium (1923-1935): The second-to-last paragraph can be taken out completely.
The DiMaggio era (1936-1951): DiMaggio's hitting streak can be reduced to one or two sentences from the three paragraphs it currently holds.
And in general, just condense information that isn't essential to telling the story of the Yankee's franchise. History of the New York Yankees is an excellent article, but a lot of the info there is just clutter on this main page. -RunningOnBrains 10:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few more suggestions:
I'm not sure about the fair use rationale for Image:TorrePoster.PNG in the context of this article. It's ok for now, but it might be brought up as a point of contention at WP:FAC.
The New Yankee Stadium needs a citation or two. An image of construction or an artists's rendition of the future statium would be great.
In Design, the note about the Knicks is probably not needed.
They are also one of the few teams in Major League Baseball to shun the trend of creating a "third jersey". What is a third jersey?
Not sure if the bit about the near-uniform change in 1974 warrants inclusion.
in the dawn of their new dynasty quite over-dramatic, no?
Mention of "Freddy" and "The Bleacher Creatures" should be in terms of one or two sentences, not several paragraphs.
In general, more references all around
Again, these are all just suggestions, so ignore anything you think is unreasonable. I just hate to see articles go this long on Peer Review without so much as a peep. Feel free to contact me here or on my talk page if you have questions/comments. -RunningOnBrains 11:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review this. I agree with most of your points and I'll try to fix most of them at some point. Sportskido8 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a timeline of archaeology, designed to replace the List of years in archaeology page. The list of years page seemed to result in lots of pages with little content, when an interested party (such as myself) wanted as much info as possible on one page for quick browsing and searching. Essentially, I'm taking the data in each single year page and compiled them into decades. I've only completed years 2000 through 2006 and wanted to stop for a peer review and suggestions prior to completing the other 200+ years.
I'm afraid that the set up and layout of the Timeline of archaeology, 2000s page (one of the many children pages that will be created) lends towards a very large table of contents before any actual data shows up, and was also wondering what a better solution might be.
BakerQ 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this article to be reviewed as I am trying to get it to featured articles status. It is already currently a good article. When I nominated the article for featured status, it was rejected because it was too "list centric,", "cuttered," it didn't, "give any sense of what's notable about it," and that it, "needs more sources other than Newshounds itself and the official site." (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newshounds) I think I've sorted all of this is now, however I am having difficulty finding any reviews. As far as I'm aware, finding reviews for webcomics is difficult.
Main areas that need reviewing are the introduction, the characters, and sources for reviews of webcomics, if there are any.
If you need to find out anything else about Newshounds, there is the website newshounds.com and other Newshounds articles, which can be accessed from the the template at the bottom of the article. ISD 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing this article needs is just to be written better. It seems hard to understand for someone (like me) who's never heard of the comic before. Some sentences that need work--
British spelling on some words ("satirises", "realised") despite this apparently being an American subject.
"possibly based on San Francisco" -- How is this indicated?
"they are very political" -- They are political? What does this mean?
"There are also some minor characters have returning roles in KPET stories. " Missing a word. Better yet, chop off the first three.
No indication of readership level or popularity of the strip. Has it been mentioned in off-line sources? This is probably the biggest issue I have.
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When this article recently achieved GA status, it was recommended that it be peer reviewed. I would mainly ask about how the article reads, and what needs to be added for FA status. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the Gameplay section, and plan on doing so with the Plot section as well. I finally found a hardcopy of the US instruction booklet for any needed references. I'll try to get this done so we can determine how the prose flows. ~ Hibana 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a peer review for this article as I feel that it has reached a sufficently stable point in its life style, although only a few editors have contributed content and comment (both positive and negative) thus far.GiollaUidir 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few suggestions:
GENERAL
The sections are far too short to merit their own section headers. Three of them are only one paragraph long. You don't need a TOC for an article of this length.
The paragraphs are not organized well. You have paragraphs consisting of a single sentence, for example. Each paragraph should introduce an assertion in a topic sentence and then expand or back up that assertion. I'd recommend removing your section headers and replacing them with topic sentences. Replace "Imprisonment(1976-1986)" with "During her incarceration between 1976 and 1988, Farrell agitated for prisoners' rights" (or maybe something a little more NPOV).
If you do keep the section headers (which I don't recommend), make the format consistent. Some have a space before the parenthetical dates and some don't.
Per WP:MOS, footnotes should go after the comma or period, not before.
In general, you've done a pretty good job of keeping NPOV, but double-check distinctions between "kill" and "murder," and consider whether your presentation at any point could be seen as favoring a pro-Republican or anti-Republican stance. On a topic as contentious as the IRA, it's especially important to avoid even the appearance of bias.
The sentences run on too long. The prose needs to be tightened throughout. Both of these, I suspect, result from the conversation style of the prose. A conversational style isn't necessarily bad, but try to keep it in check.
Avoid parenthetical expressions when possible. They disrupt flow. If the information is really important, discuss it in a separate sentence or paragraph.
Don't assume I know the context. Maybe I'm from another part of the world and barely know where Ireland is on a map, let along the history of conflict. Consider adding a "Historical background" section that briefly and VERY neutrally summarizes the IRA and Operation Flavius.
LEDE
The first sentence is far too long. It should say who she was and why she was notable, but I shouldn't run out of breath reading it. The phrase "at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea" in particular doesn't belong in the first sentence. I'd chop this into two, maybe even three sentences.
She is, she is, she was... This repeated used of the verb "to be" makes for a passive writing style. Instead of "She is one of the subjects of the Irish rebel song Gibraltar Three," how about "She helped inspire the Irish rebel song 'Gibraltar Three'"? Instead of "she was the leader of the women prisoners in Armagh Women's Prison," how about "she led the inmates in Armagh Women's Prison"? ("Women prisoners" is redundant, since you're about to specify "Armagh Women's Prison.")
"During the late 1970s - mid 1980s" reads awkwardly. Can you give exact or approximate dates instead, like "From 1978 through 1986" or "From approximately 1978 through 1986"?
EARLY LIFE
"Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland to an unremarkable middle class family": "unremarkable" feels POV. Either remove it or cite it.Rephrased 15/6/2007
"(although her grandfather was an IRA member during the Irish War of Independence)": in general, avoid parenthetical expressions (see how disruptive this is?) because they disrupt flow. If it's important, give it its own sentence or even paragraph. If it's not important, leave it out.
"she left school at eighteen to work in an Insurance Office." Is this really part of her "early life"? I expect "early life" to be about childhood, not young adulthood.
"About this time she met a Provisional IRA Volunteer called Bobby Storey who persuaded her to join the IRA." "About this time" is redundant; since you're telling the story in a linear order, I would have assumed "about this time" unless you told me otherwise. How did she meet him? Was she already politically active, or was he a chance acquaintance at work, for example? It's not clear whether her job is important to the Storey story. You've put them in the same paragraph, so the presumption would be that there is a connection. A few commas would help here. How about something like, "At a local shinty fanciers meeting, She met Bobby Storey, a Provisional IRA volunteer, who persuaded her to join the IRA"?
FIRST TERM
"On the 5th April, 1976 she and two others bombed the Conway Hotel, Dunmurry-it is believed it was an attempt to kill members of the Security Forces who frequented the hotel." Please use em-dashes, not hyphens, where appropriate. However, a dash isn't appropriate here. I'd recommend a semicolon, or better yet, breaking this into two separate sentences.
IMPRISONMENT
Don't assume I know what "O/C" or "H-block" means.
Be careful about NPOV here. This section portrays her as a noble crusader. There's also an argument to be made that conditions might have been appropriate, or that inmates aren't there to be coddled. (I'm not arguing for these positions, just pointing out that you seem to have presented a one-sided account.) Can you cite a third-party reference that evaluates the conditions of the prisons?
SECOND TERM
These sentences are packing too much information. Break the sentences up so that each sentence contains an easily digestible amount of information. Don't try to pack everything in at once. You won't run out of paper, and you'll make it a lot easier for the reader to continue reading. If it's vital to point out connections between information that you've conveyed in separate sentences, use a third sentence to do so. The three sentences in this paragraph/section should probably be more like eight.
It would help if you explained Operation Flavius rather than tucking it in as a parenthetical afterthought. Assume that I don't know anything about the IRA, let alone Operation Flavius, and tell me what I need to know.Done my best but someone else might want to have a look...
AFTERMATH
The first sentence shouldn't stand alone. It should be the topic sentence of a paragraph that summarizes the aftermath. You can provide details in subsequent paragraphs.
The prose can be tightened throughout the article, but several examples pop out in this paragraph:
"The deaths in Gibraltar resulted in a further spiral of violence." These words tell me the same thing. How about "Violence escalated following the deaths in Gibraltar, claiming at least five more lives"?Again, done my best but someone else might want to have a look...
"while preparing to mount an attack on members of the British Army." How about "while preparing to attack British soldiers"?
Done my best but someone else might want to have a look..."At a 1995 hearing to review the killings by The European Court of Human Rights it was decided by the court..." How about "The European Court of Human Rights reviewed the incident in 1995. The 10:9 majority found that the Gibraltar Three were unlawfully killed"?
For the avoidance of doubt, that was not their conclusion --Gibnews
The last three sentence/paragraphs should be combined into a single paragraph whose topic is jury verdicts.
"Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes blundered into the funeral cortege" stood out to me. It almost makes it sound like they were drunk.
The parenthetical "see Corporals killings" flows awkwardly. Either use summary style or integrate "Corporals killings" into the text.
These are just one person's suggestions; feel free to adopt or dismiss them as you see fit. I hope this helps! Peirigill 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished a complete rewrite of the article on this really enigmatic star. I'm not an astronomer and I have read the sources through more or less carelessly--therefore the article may include self-contradictions (others than arising from conflicting papers) and misunderstandings. Plus the obligatory grammatical errors, of course. Any corrections are greatly appreciated!--JyriLtalk 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great article! I corrected a minor grammatical problem in the lead. I do think this could use a good once-over by someone who's not been involved with writing the text to tighten up some of the phrasing. I may have time to look at it more closely tomorrow.
The Hubble photo is amazing, of course. —ptk✰fgs 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, though the section about planet-swallowing could do with a description of the 1-planet model given in some of the references. There's also [3], which claims that the planet model has severe problems and can be ruled out. Chaos syndrome 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on this article for months, bringing it to GA status. I nominated it for FAC in November, but de-nominated it after a few days. It has changed quite a bit since its GA pass. I feel now with the additions I made to it for the initial FAC that it's cumbersome at 78k, though as thorough as possible.
The book is unique: it has been read by the majority of the English-speaking world and rates very highly on books of impact and importance, but lacks a large body of study outside of the legal and education fields. What has been written in these fields is primarily a study on its impact of the legal profession and guides on how to teach it.
On images: Harper Lee despises having her photo taken. She had some shots taken of her when the book was released, but there are no public domain photos of her. At one point, I had screen stills from the film, but they were taken out by another editor. What is the recommendation for including only book covers?
Your input is appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hadseys -- the article is very good however, a few things I've noticed is that
the table of contents does seem to be rather large, is there a way too condense it perhaps?
I'm up for suggestions that don't compromise the content. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the article too is also very large, and may not conform to wikipedia's size guidelines, for information on how to write a featured article about a book check out Lord of the Rings and our policies on our article size
Yes, I recognize this. I'm asking for assistance in what to cut out, if anything. I have read all the featured article novels, and used them as guides in writing this article. But there is a point where TKaM becomes its own article, apart from the others. Because of the far-reaching impact this book has had, that it is Harper Lee's only novel and she is somewhat enigmatic about it, and because the film and play are so closely related to the book, the lore involving the novel is extensive. Unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, unfortunately, the subject doesn't lend itself into neater divisions as a trilogy does. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the images tend to be concentrated towards the latter parts of the article, perhaps more images of life in America at the time may help to provide more context for readers
Other than that, a very well article that is extensively referenced, very comprehensive and very well written. Kudos --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider these ideas for images. Thank you for your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on this article about a year ago. Much good work has been done since then. Here's my two-cents. Not for nothing, but I think that under 'Reception' both the impact on legal profession and race relation sections are places which should be trimmed. I think it would make more sense to place the impact on legal profession in the Atticus Finch article, as 99% of it revolves around him. Also, include a link to Atticus under 'See also.' Furthermore, I would remove the impact on race relation section altogether. Although I hate to do this for 2 reasons. 1) It removes your hard work 2) Implies that I'm racially insensitive--I think that this is a tenuous connection anyhow. It states as much in the article:
"The novel's release is so closely associated with the Civil Rights movement, many analyses of the book and biographies of Harper Lee include important moments in the movement, despite the fact that she had no direct involvement in any of them."
That's all for now. Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, trimming parts to an article one has worked hard on to scour sources is difficult and I do it with some reservation. I will link to Atticus Finch - you are right to point that out. However, since the majority of written material on the novel is about Atticus in the legal profession, I thought it appropriate to give that material weight in the article. I have to think about that.
The second point is also difficult for me to consider. The novel's first impact was on race relations. Even though it is seen as a bit outdated for many in the field of race relations, in the context of its history, it was quite influential. I have to admit I don't understand your point about the tenuous connection. Are you saying it's not strong enough to be included in the article?
I appreciate your comments and feedback. --Moni3 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Atticus, I think there is a certain point where one article becomes too long and needs to separate. I think this is normal and a good thing. Take for instance a honey bee hive, they get too big and one queen bee leaves the other with a bunch of other bees. When I read the legal profession section, all I see it being about is Atticus. This makes a fortunate breaking point as you can pretty much cut/paste it into the Atticus article. I wouldn't be surprised if someone at a later date makes Atticus a FA--he's certainly notable enough. Now in regards to the race relation and tenuous connection, first you place emphasis on the children in the movie. This almost seems as though it could go in the article on the film. I suppose my main argument with the tenuous nature of the material is that I have a problem with emphasizing an impact that isn't necessarily the main focus of the book. As far as I can tell Lee didn't write it as a civil rights movement book, per se. As noted above in the article, the gay community has found resonance in TKAM. However, just because a group finds resonance doesn't necessarily mean one must include a considerable section on it. Granted, this may be a weak argument on my part.
One other section that I think you should take a second look at is the Style section. I'm typically not too big of a fan of the Style/Themes sections of articles on books, simply because I think they tend to read into aspects of the book way too far and are more interpretative. However, I think the Theme section is well done in this article and should be left. I think the style could be trimmed back. I'm not sure that sections devoted to irony, parody, satire, and legal allusions are needed. I think that if you cut these back it would be a good place to trim the article. Additionally, it would solve a little bit of the problem with that insanely large table of contents. One thing I would like to mention however is that I think it is good to keep that legal allusion with the opening quote. I think that is significant, albeit interpretative. Best Wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just cut a large portion of the article, adding to Atticus Finch, and shifting some material around. That was physically painful. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A current Good Article, would like to improve it to at least A-class and perhaps even FA status. Thanks for helping.Rlevse 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well done. I made a few minor changes, you might want to look through the page's history to see my edit summaries so you know why I did what I did :) Keep up the excellent work! --JohnDBuell 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and did them.Rlevse 17:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. The "Organization" section seems a bit out of place though, although if it were reworked to show how each level related to the individual Scout's experience, then its inclusion would make sense. •Jim62sch• 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence or two on this. Let me know if you have specific ideas on organization to make it even better. Thanks for the help.Rlevse 20:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not as international as I would have expected. For example, I understand that the Canadian scout organization has declined in recent years into near oblivion. The United Way controversy is also notable, but missing. Deet 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about organizations, but the boy himself (the first clause is "A Boy Scout is a boy") See Scouting for international/organization/movement focus.Rlevse 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disagreement whether or not this list, which is one of my favorite lists, should contain all Mario characters and species, or just distinct characters with proper names. (AKA, Goombella from Paper Mario 2, but not a Goomba.) For the longest time it's been the former, but someone insists it be the other way. I thought that was a pretty silly idea, because then that removed about half the list and didn't seem to do anything other than remove anything.
As of right now I've just seen this one person who thinks this way, but there is still a disagreement. I wanted to bring this up.
I'd love to have this resolved. Any input? Toastypk 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While grammatical purity might require that a list of "characters" contain only distinguishable individuals and not collectives, it seems obvious that the list itself is much more useful with species included. I'd be really surprised to see such a list and not find "Goomba", for example. The distinct-characters suggestion also introduces ambiguity in cases like "Bigger Boo" where there are multiple such characters, but the name denotes a single boss. Opabinia regalis 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger Boo is a different entity from Big Boo, King Boo and Atomic Boo.
As much a character as Goombella, Koopa Troopa, Blooper, Bob-omb, etc. Just because it says "List of Mario Characters" doesn't mean you cant just exclude basic enemies. They're characters too. So far, it still looks like you're the only one who thinks otherwise... Toastypk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goomba is as much of a character as Koopa Troopa, Blooper and Bob-omb - ie, not at all. Goombella is infinitely more so a character than the Goomba species. - A Link to the Past(talk) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Opabinia regalis completely. A character, eve as insignificant as "henchman", is a character. Especially since some of these 'insignificant' species-characters are standards and even have wiki pages of their own (like the Goomba). Each entity in the Mario world would be a character you'd encounter. I say keep them all. --BakerQ 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does having an article make you a character? The Goomba page is for the species. They don't refer to the Goomba as a single entity, they refer to a Goomba as any entity, regardless of random Goombas or characters. - A Link to the Past(talk) 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it did. The fact remains, however, that I feel that Goombas are characters in the game, even if there are an infinite supply of them. They may not be as notable of a character as Bowser, but a character nonetheless, and I'd be surprised not to find them in a list of Mario characters. --BakerQ 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Goomba is a group of Goombas who may or may not be characters. If the Goomba were the most popular thing ever, it would still not be a character. Do we consider Humans to be a character in Mario games? Do we consider Hylians in the Zelda games to be a character? - A Link to the Past(talk) 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If all the humans looked exactly the same and were nearly clones of each other, yes. Just for example's sake, in a similar Zelda II list there would be (if I can recall) about 10 human characters: fat man, thin woman in red, old woman in orange, swordsman, etc, etc. It seems to me that a key difference here is that in the instruction manuals they were referred to as Goombas, not goombas. In my mind, that helps (not necessarily proves, but helps) establish them as characters. --BakerQ 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an absurd stretch. A species containing random beings counts as a character because the name is capitalized? Well, I say the Lens of Truth is a character because it's capitalized. Just because it's more extreme than yours does not mean that yours is not an extreme stretch. A species is never considered a character. Additionally, they do not look the same - Para-goombas, mini goombas, mega goombas, King Goomba, Red Goomba, Blue Goomba, etc. - A Link to the Past(talk) 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I didn't say it confirms, I said that it helps, not proves. The fact remains that you are so far the only one who feels the entries should be removed, while others feel strongly that they should remain. If you still feel that they're given too much or too little credit, I'd suggest editing the list to denote Major and Minor characters, or noting the Goombas (et al) as a Species. A parenthetical designation between the name and description, I think, should sufficiently resolve the conflict:
Goomba (or Chibibo) — [Species] - the very first enemy that appears in Super Mario Bros. and has appeared in most of Mario's games since.
Would you still have an objection to this? --BakerQ 12:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! This is not about Mario species, and I have constantly gotten arguments that they are "surprised to not see Goomba", as if because people expect him to be there, that he should be there. A comprehensive list is not necessarily long. Putting species in a character article makes as much sense as putting characters in an item article. - A Link to the Past(talk) 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And would you argue consensus if it was you against ten people who wanted to say Stephen Colbert was a transvestite? - A Link to the Past(talk) 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People expect to see it there because most people consider it a character. The consensus swings both ways: if you were the only person stating that he was a transvestite and everyone else says otherwise, why should your opinion be taken fact? You are the only person who feels that they should not show up on the list. We (in so far as this debate has shown includes everyone else in the world) believe that a Mario Character includes every creature in the game series.--BakerQ 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Goomba = character is no more true than Stephen Colbert = transvestite.
You have failed to give me a single legitimate reason why a Goomba is a character, while a human is not. And the dictionary gives me one ultimate reason: "A person portrayed in an artistic piece, such as a drama or novel." A person, not people. - A Link to the Past(talk) 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betraying my geekery here, but in the original Transformers series there were a group of Decepticons called the Insecticons. There were three of them, Bombshell, Kickback and Shapnel. Beyond that, there were other Transformers such as Wreckgar (a Junkion), Scourge, Quintessons, Sharkticons. In the fiction around these characters, there were thousands of them, nearly identical clones of each other, yet they were all called by that same first name. By your logic, they're not characters in the Transformers world?
I'm at an impasse here. You have also failed to show me (or anyone else) a single valid reason why all those list entries should be removed. I say we leave them there, recognize your dissention on the talk page and drop it. --BakerQ 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that these are not clones. They are a species. There is not a species of Wreckgars, there are "nearly identical clones of eachother". Goombas are a collection of characters and non-characters, while Wreckgars are not a species of characters and non-characters. - A Link to the Past(talk) 18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew moments after posting that that that would be the angle you'd attack from because Wreckgar was the weakest part of my argument. How about Sharkticon? Or Bombshell, Kickback and Shrapnel? Are they not characters?
Look, I'm really done trying to find a happy medium here, you're not accepting any compromises offered here and the only reason you're dragging this out is that you know that if it came down to a vote right now the results would be one to many. It remains that you are the only one who feels this way. --BakerQ 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise? How is "do all of what we want and nothing of what you want" any sort of a compromise? I wouldn't agree to leave species in an article that isn't about species any more than I would agree to putting the Super Mushroom on that list. It has syes, so why not? - A Link to the Past(talk) 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two compomises have been issued: rename the list to Mario series Characters and Species, or include a note beside each relevant entry denoting it as a species. Those are compromises because you want to make changes to the list and no one else does. You have yet to yield in any way to anything besides outright removal of the entries. In light of the circumstances, request denied. --BakerQ 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote KEEP all entries and not modifying the list by consideration of species. --BakerQ 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just make TWO articles. You know, instead of cluttering up one list for the sake of making it long and for no other reason than to make it long, we could have TWO lists and include a note on the characters page acknowledging it. Strong object to calling a species a character. - A Link to the Past(talk) 02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this on my watch page, but I've got doubts that the vote's going to change much. So far we're at 3 to 1. --BakerQ 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally keep as is. Sorry Link, you're the only one. Toastypk 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I seem to have forgotten that species should be called a character solely because they're notable and people expect them to be on the list. Does that mean that we should take off all unpopular enemies? Because if you accept Goomba, logically, you have to accept every single variant of the Goomba. - A Link to the Past(talk) 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Wikipedia encourages users to keep lists small if possible. The best thing for Wikipedia is to make two separate lists. Currently, the list is at 99kb, and I have no doubts that it couldn't break 150k. - A Link to the Past(talk) 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit offtopic: a short introduction and a link to the (or a) mario article would be nice for those not so familiar with mario. --WS 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of splitting the article from a 124kb article to one 69kb species article and a 53kb characters article.
As being long does not make an article comprehensive, I will not revert it back without a very good reason. Having two articles accomplishes the same as having one extremely long article, but is more convenient for people. - A Link to the Past(talk) 03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the split given the history of this discussion. If any other user agrees with A Link to the Past about the split, I won't revert them. Yowee 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said a good reason. People wanting an article to be of poor quality is a pretty poor reason. It is a styling guideline that it should NOT be that much more than 60kb, let alone 124kb. You can revert it to make it long, and if it stays reverted, this article has literally no chance of being featured. - A Link to the Past(talk) 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish. Rather than let another user revert the changes for you, which demonstrates support of your reason, you are free to revert it yourself. Yowee 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are lists eligible for featured status? Korcas 05:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the requests for peer review have been satisified as pertaining to the original conflict. I move that the peer review request be removed and this dialogue be archived as there are now two places to discuss this page. --BakerQ 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went and asked a couple friends their opinion on the matter (Zscout and Andrevan), they seem to agree that it's completely pointless to make the list as long as it is when there is a very simple way to make it shorter and have as much content as it would as one list. - A Link to the Past(talk) 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that statement, are we to assume that you now speak for three? Should I include the people in my household as my votes as well? You're still the only one voting for the removal of the entries and have, despite votes and reverts, continued to alter the page as you and only you see fit. --BakerQ 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course. Except - THIS ISN'T A VOTE. This is a PEER REVIEW. The difference between my friends and your pets are that they have an opinion on the matter and they are Wikipedians (admins no less). And will you stop calling them freaking removals? I AM NOT REMOVING THEM. How is moving them REMOVING? Christ, stop making it seem like I'm doing damage to an article by reducing its size! And wait, are you honestly saying that I am doing this as I see fit?! For the love of Christ, did you ever notice how I constantly repeated "style guidelines" and how I adhere to them? They specifically state that an article should not be THIS LONG! While you have yourself (Toasty has stated that he could go with a split) flat out refusing to give a reason why you prefer the article to be of poor quality, I have Wikipedia on my side, and I will continue to revert until you stop continuously ignoring what you don't want to exist. Did you know that when somebody asks you to prove your point, you cannot will it out of existence just so you don't have to strain yourself coming up with a reason why one bad article is better than two decent articles? - A Link to the Past(talk) 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm just wondering how much more enraged and aggitated you're going to get. Take note: every single ocmment you make that includes an insult has been and will continue to be flatly ignored. Communicate with civility and maturity and you'll find that I'm much more receptive.
That said, your intentions to remove entries are transparent. Yes, remove, as in "no longer here". (It is possible for things to be removed to another location.) I'll continue this debate on the articles talk page where it belongs. --BakerQ 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, splitting the article was the best thing to do. Even if there is nothing that prevents us from writing long lists, it is best to split it down in sub-lists when it becomes too large. Having an article with a size of over 100 kB is not very convenient, so splitting this into characters and species is a good alternative, and I think it should be kept that way. – Elisson•Talk 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is good, but could be better. Any comments are appreciated. If this could be on the Main Page it would be good! --TheM62Manchester 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this still needs a lot of work. Two concerns right off the bat:
Wikipedia:Summary style -> The three subarticles (origins, rituals and film) do deserve to be split from the main article, but there should still be a summary of the contents of each page in the main Santa Claus article. The standard Template:Main should be used rather than "See this page", as well.
One-sentence paragraphs and supershort sections, such as Santa Claus reindeers' name should be avoided through expansion or merging with other sections. --Amuck 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long way to go. Some sections are just 'see also', they need content. External links in text, no inline citations - this needs to be reversed :) Plus, add more pics.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes:
Although this is repeating the above, it makes no sense to me to have a section heading for a section that only contains a link to another page, and it's becoming one of my pet peaves. :-) The reader shouldn't have to go to another page just to get information those topics. They should be summarized with a paragraph or two, and then if the readers wants to learn more they can click on a {{main}} article link.
I'd like to see some coverage of the supposed connection between the story of flying reindeers and the northern European shamanic ritual of eating red and white amanita muscaria mushroom.[4] Apparently these mushrooms are a favorite treat for reindeer.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I think this article (self-created and largely self-written) is fairly comprehensive; I think that it's basically been properly configured and referenced by inline citations, and I would really like to get any other feedback on it that anyone thinks might improve the article. Eventually, I'd like to nominate it for featured status. Also, is there anything else I could/should possibly put in the intro? It currently seems a little short to me. Thanks. Absecon 59 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestions have now been largely attended to. Could anyone provide further feedback concerning what could or should be improved for this article before it might be nominated for featured status? Absecon 59 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Old Request for Peer Review
Hi. This page has been largely self-created, and I'm wondering what anyone else can suggest to improve this article, besides the somewhat-obvious suggestion of "find more print sources of information." This is difficult, as the U.S. Mint in New Orleans has not been directly discussed much in writing. Much thanks for all feedback. Absecon 59 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mention of Hurricane Katrina in the lead of the article is rather irrelevant; the lead generally sums up the entire article rather than presenting new ideas. Also, though it is rather difficult to correct, the article is simply just a history of the mint and then a long list of statistics of coinage (which should be properly referenced by using inline citations). AndyZ 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: (1) What exactly do you mean by the "inline citations"? (2) What else would you have in the article besides a history of the mint and the statistics of coinage? If I'm leaving out something you'd like to see, please let me know what you've got in mind. Absecon 59 10:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITE for more on inline citations. (The main types of citations used seem to be {{inote}} and footnotes.) Scott5114 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to get this article to featured status, with help from two other editors. Until recently the article's talk page was empty, so I don't think this article has had the scrutiny needed. Is there anything significant missing? Anything that could be covered better? Anything confusing or not explained well enough? Any problems with grammar or style? Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. --Aude (talkcontribs) 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aude, I'm interested in helping with this one. I have not yet reviewed the article, but at this time my comment is that the intro needs a bit more context. I know this is basic, but I think the intro should give enough context that anyone in the world will have a full definition of the article's subject. I would suggest something like
"Banff National Park is a CanadianNational Park located in the Rocky Mountains. Established in 1885, it was the first area in Canada to be designated a national park. It is located in the province of Alberta, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, and includes the town of Banff. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles)
Previously: "Banff National Park is located in the Canadian Rockies, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, Alberta, and includes the town of Banff, Alberta. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles) and was the first national park created in Canada."
This includes links to Canada, Alberta, and Canadian National Parks, and gives the real basics to the reader that someone too familiar with the subject takes for granted.
My next comment would/will be to ensure that the introduction (WP:LEAD) summarizes the main points of the article. Outriggr 07:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to switch the order of the paragraphs in the intro. Start with the features, before you hit the reader with statistic data. "Towering", "scenic" and "enjoyed" aren't words I'd use in the intro of an encyclopedic article. Are all of the names in the "early history" that well known, that the reader will get the significance of their explorations just from the names? Or should they get explained? All those numbers, figures and sizes in the following chapter are well researched, but IMHO presented boring. No one expands a park to get it to a certain size, please explain the reasons: Which features were included, possibly why. --h-stt!? 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm biased, as I prefered Jasper ...[reply]
Jasper is more remote and has a lot less development and is altogether a wilder place for sure. Will try to reduce the promotional wording some.--MONGO 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like every time I look at this page, it gets bigger and more comprehensive. Having lived in the area for a few years now, I believe it to be comprehensive enough for improvement into a featured article. Cwolfsheep 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
I would like to see this article made a featured article at some point. I'm involved in the organization and am a former office-holder, though I believe I can still be objective in my editing. Any input people can give on how to make it better is appreciated!--Dave Boven 21:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well so far, but I'm sure there's a good deal more to be said before it becomes a featured article candidate. --Gray Porpoise 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The material could stand to be cited. It's a new group, so its all probably in recent memory, but something concrete and standard would be good. Other than that, it looks like a nice article. Only one of the officers has a wikipedia article. It might help to shed more lite on the society if other members were profiled.--Forlornandshorn 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A peer review was made in the past month with good results, but it needs some more copyediting to make it suitable for FA (criteria 2a of FA - the only issue that was raised during FAC nomination). It would be great as the geography articles in the FA list are mindblocking, limited to certain areas, because of the language, which scares users from other countries. Wikipedia and I need your help!--Pedro 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started copyediting again but I haven't got very far. If you are going for FA status it needs some hard work doing on it with regard to copyediting which will mean your personal writing style being lost. 2a is hard work. The references should use the citation templates (this will probably come up in FAC review), and you need to check WP:MOS for some style tips (such as adding non-breaking spaces). Good luck - Yomangani 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with my personal style being lost in this wikipedia. I'll check the Manual of Style for more tips.I'll correct that problem in references. thanks a lot Yomangani.--Pedro 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review against feature article critera; previously this has been approved as a good article. Other suggestions for improvement are also welcome! --EngineerScotty 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this whole article to be reviewed, because I am trying to get it to FA status. Any comments that could benefit the page are welcome. Thank you.Chili14 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The awards section could be formatted with a table similar to the other sections, and the GMA section in particular needs formatting to remove the caps and such. Also, see WP:FOOT for some information on WP's method of using inline citations. Moulder 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Good Article, but could be a great article. It currently has a number of structural weaknesses along with too much detail in some areas, and gaps in others. Its an article that needs to find its direction. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "NATO Summit 2006 will take place in Latvia" and "Connections to terrorism" appear out of place in the Purpose section. The later should probably be in a criticisms section for neutrality reasons. As I read it, Operation Gladio was intended for clandestine operations if NATO members became occupied. There's a big difference between that and what is stated as "right wing terrorist organisations", so I think the reason for that wording needs to be clarified. Otherwise it reads like leftist propaganda. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gladio was originally set up to counter a soviet invasion but as parliamentary investigations show, the network was extensively used (and since no invasion took place - solely used) to discredit and supress socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Gladio was (and perhaps is still) and integral part of NATO. In deed, it has been discovered (and published, see references) that NATO candidates were required to set up gladio networks before their membership would be accepted. These networks were then put under the control of the NATO leadership. Its an important aspect of NATO's purpose, so I don't think it should be under a critism section - it isn't a critism, its simply a fact. Self-Described Seabhcán 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then most of that section is more appropriate for the history sections. I only see one sentence in there related to purpose, and that is not even confirmed or denied by NATO. Nowhere in there does it actually state the purpose of suppressing socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Instead it states the purpose was to increase the power of the U.S.A.
I can somewhat understand the purpose of a Gladio in the light of an anti-communist organization, given the rampant paranoia of the cold war period. But then that section should be specifically about the purpose; not a history. — RJH (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the whole of NATO's purpose is historical - it is to defend western Europe against the Soviet Union - and NATO has never really redefined itself since the collapse of that enemy. Also, there is no evidence that Gladio was every shut down but if we put it in the history section it implies that we know it was.
The history section can just cover the history of the revelations regarding Gladio, as well as the current EU activities in that regard. It does not need to infer that it was ever shut down. — RJH (talk)
I do think you've made some good points about the section not being streamlined for inclusion under purpose. Perhaps the solution is to keep a brief mention (~1 line) of Gladio in the purpose section, and move the rest to history. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works for me: having the "Purpose" section describe the existence of the Gladio and it's purpose--both as a clandestine organization to operate behind enemy lines and as an anti-communist group that employed terrorist and subversive tactics, up to and including coup attempts. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What do you think? How about the rest of the article? Self-Described Seabhcán 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that looks good. The only sentence that might need to be tweaked reads, "The official aim was to prevent Communist movements..." Since the program still hasn't been officially confirmed, it would read more neutral if used a word such as "alleged" or "supposed" were included.
Apart from that, the only things that come to mind are: NATO agreements on standardized armaments and shared equipment, and measures taken for multi-national cooperation on the battlefield (such as common communications, languages, radio frequencies, IFF, etc.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely do I find an article on a book this well written. It is quite comprehensive and references itself where necessary. Furthermore it is neutral and stable. I believe it shows Wikipedia at it's best. b_cubed 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only glanced through it quickly but my initial impression is that the lead is far too short for such a long article, as per Wikipedia:Lead section. violet/riga(t) 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content is mostly fine, but I think that the sections that interpret the book need references. A lot of them are fairly common knowledge but there are some that are more obscure. --Cherry blossom tree 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is too short, please expand. {{spoiler}} and related are a must. While lists in the character section are passable, the one in 'Allusions and references to actual history, geography and current science' needs to be changed into normal text, and the entire heading is too long. 'Cultural references' section should also be delisted. Finally, this needs many more inline citations, especially for significance. Plus those citations should be academic: such an important book has surely generated wealth of academic comments, those should be utilised.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very bullet pointy. Maybe covert some into sections? Dev920 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions for what can turn this article into a featured article, and general "what you think of it" stuff Jediwannabe 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done quite a bit of rework on the article and reordered it. Jediwannabe 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This underwent a previous peer review (See above) and most of the suggestions were implemented, and then a FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Supreme Court/archive1), which failed disasterously. I've attempted to address most of the issues from the FAC but would like another inspection of this articel by other sets of eyes, especially concerning the list of cases (How should they be presented? by case?/by sbject?, how much detail, etc). Finally, is there anything missing, or something that would drastically improve the articel or make it more interesting? 68.39.174.238 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am responding to concerns raised by the peerreviewer.js on the page linked to above. Other comments (placed here), will be answered here.
Note! I've hacked together an infobox for this court to summarize some highlights of current operation. I'd definately like to see what people have to say about IT, as it significantly changes the look of the intro. 68.39.174.238 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very controversial topic indeed. I think it's ready to be peer reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selmo (talk • contribs) 04:50, August 6, 2006
As hard to find as scholarly sources on this might be - I've never looked but I imagine it's a bit harder than, say, evolution - the article has no references. Maybe it's not ready yet. Moulder 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hacking through this article that, when read, appeared to be written by a close friend of Rik Mayall's. It was more of a Lord Flashheart fan-club than an encyclopedic article. I am willing to work on it more i just don't know what to do next
(The Bread 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
My first instinct is that this is as good as a minor character's article can get, and a glance suggests it's quite good for its length. If you can find information on the origins of good ole' Flash, what inspired the writers, or what Mayall used as a basis for his performance, that'd be great. I doubt such material exist, but those are what I think would put more flesh on our understanding of the character. Good work!--Monocrat 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could cite your sources, and perhaps add some info on influence, and all that. It would be hilarious to see this as an FA one day, but it would be one hell of a task. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recently re-written (mostly by yours truly) a la the Solid Snake article, gonna take care of the merge tag myself. Don't really know what else to say, appreciate some advice
The photo comparison seems more forced than in Solid Snake, but I'm not terribly familiar with it. What's there is fine, but there ought to be more information out there; any revealing interviews with Kojima? Choice quotes from reviewers that exemplify the reception of the character? Nifboy 05:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, essentially; if there isn't more information available to round out the article, it ought to be merged into the prose-list. Nifboy 07:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Submarine is a former featured article, but it has lost its status a few months ago. Since then I've made some major edits, mostly additions, to counter the problems stated in the FA removal. The context suggests this article deserves FA status, and I hope to improve it at least to the best of FA standarts. However, the views on required improvement can differ, and I'd like to get advice before making new major changes. The specific problems may be:
Length. The article is above average length, being about 67 kilobytes. In my personal opinion, this is justified by the subject being both highly technical and historical, and too complex to be covered in a short article. However, prior to further expansion, I'd appreciate comments on what sections might be removed or compressed, and how. Please don't suggest breaking it in subarticles; while there already are some, I'd prefer the subject to be mostly covered in a single article. I'd also appreciate opinions on whether increased length is justified.
Readability. While I tried to make the article well readable, I'm still not sure whether all sections can be understood by all readers. Anyone with a technical higher education should have no problems reading it, but there can be some hardships for people without it. Please read the article and note any sections or sentences that might be difficult to understand and should be explained.
Citations. My job is connected with design og submarines, and I wrote sections (in the first half of the article) mostly basing on first-hand knowledge, however inserting citations wherever I found some sources. There still may be a number of statements without sources stated, so any help with pointing them or, better, suggesting sources to mention, would improve the article.
Other concerns. The article might miss some important detail, be too technical, or have other problems. Please point whatever else could improve it, and just improve it if you have time. -- CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The body of the article is quite good. The Achille's heel is the referencing. The refs should be in proper format, prefereably cite php, and you lots more footnotes. If you can do this, I'd then suggest resubmitting for FA. Rlevse 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has gone through a good amount of editing in the past year, and I think it may be getting close to Featured article status. I would like to know what may still need to be done to bring this article to FAC. Dr. Cash 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On just a cursory skim: the introduction is too short, see WP:LEAD; there are several more redlinks in the Culture and Economy sections then I'm comfortable with, stubs could be started for some of them; and at least one citation is marked as missing. -Fsotrain09 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try and follow the layout of another featured city like Detroit. --Peta 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand the lead to summarize the article, date formatting is not correct. Rlevse 12:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping to nominate this article for FA within the next few weeks, but I believe it still needs some work before going there. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions so I can take care of them before then. —ptk✰fgs 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice article, I loved this game as a kid but never quite understood the doubling cube before (and I remember re-reading "Hoyles" three times trying to figure it out). My only real concern is the lack of information under vareties is at odds with multitude of information given under history. These games either are similar to Backgammon to deserve being covered by the article or they are not. They cannot be derserving of detailed coverage in one area and not the other.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think the best solution to this problem of balance might be to discuss some of the more backgammon-like variants here in the article. I'll see about coming up with a couple of paragraphs there. —ptk✰fgs 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is important that every country and continent becomes a featured article. This article is very close to becoming featured. The article is a bit big, though, (32.7 kb), I would like to know where would be a good place to cut it down. --Thelb4 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the section "Economy of Austria" needs to give notes about specific sectors after and apart from the summary paragraphs, since there is a daughter article devoted to the topic. -Fsotrain09 00:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history is brutally short, as is culture. Religion is a part of demographics and is disproportionately long in this article. Demographics gives no indication of the level of education. References need to be included in this article or it will not pass FAC. See Lybia or Australia for guidance. --Peta 07:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article (part of a series on the life of Jan Smuts) has really come about solely through the work of User:Bastin8 and myself, so like fond parents, we are probably blind to its defects. It's been a bit of a lone effort, a fresh pair of eyes would be beneficial. Criticism of either substance or style more than welcome.
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick copyedit, removing some redundancies and substituting some repetition of phrases, but it could benefit from a more through copyedit. Some comments:
Intro:
"...was appointed Field Marshall in the Second World War" could do with rephasing to avoid the "British or Boer or something else?" question it poses with relation to the rest of the sentence.
A lot of weasel words - 'played a leading part','helping to create','significant contributions' etc.
[Consider it best not to go into too much detail in intro - Xdamrtalk]
'This article is about...' should be dropped. The title of the article tells you what it is about.
There are probably more articles that could be linked to for relevant information - I've added two in the intro, but the South African locations may have their own articles too, as may some institutions mentioned in the text.
'Family tragedy was to change this destiny.' - a bit melodramatic for an encyclopedia article
'In view of Smuts's loneliness, it is surprising that he did not make more of the social opportunities available to him.' - POV statement, should be cited or dropped (just an example - there are other POV statements)
Generally, there are a lot of weasal words 'very','extremely' etc. If there are sources that give more accurate wording I'd use those.
I recommend using the {{cite}} template for references - that's bound to come up in FAC
There are a lot of double spaces after full stops - I've cleared some, but you need to check that.
Some more citations are needed for various incidents
Standardize on Smuts' or Smuts's (I prefer the first but both are now acceptable in most written English - I suppose the recommendations for SA English would be most applicable)
Hope this helps Yomangani 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for those suggestions, all very much appreciated. I'm interested to know what incidents/facts etc you think require additional citations. It should be no problem to add them as I have most of the standard texts; I thought we had things pretty much covered on that front, but if you think that we could do with more then I'll certainly do so.
Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I've just noticed the [citation needed] tags you inserted, should be no problem to have those sorted out.
Just realised I didn't comment on the article itself (just what was wrong with it, sorry). Overall it was a good read, well-balanced, with no obvious holes in the history and enough detail to fill out his character development without overdoing it. If you were going for FA status it would probably be judged to be too short, and more-or-less every statement would need citations, but I would think it would certainly be promoted it to GA status if it was put forward after the review. Cheers, Yomangani 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Embrun, Ontario is an article that started out as a three-sentence stub and slowly grew. Back at the end of May, the Embrun, Ontario article was nominated for Featured Article, but it failed utterly (no wonder, there wasn't even any images or citations!). Since then, the Embrun, Ontario article has improved, and now many questionable facts are now cited and the article now has a couple images. Eventually, the article could be nominated for FaC sometime once it improves more.--FreshFruitsRule 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goals
Improve spelling and grammar
Expand/Merge Small Sections
Comments
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy and documentation issues: Embrun is not a city; it's a community within a township. "Vassal community" is not an existing term in the English language. Document the population claim with actual sourced demographic data from a reputable statistical agency; as of today, even the municipal government of Russell Townshipstill only claims a total population of 12,000 on its website, and the most recent statistical sources available from the federal government still only say that 6,000 of those live in Embrun; the source provided for this article's claim that 11,000+ people live in Embrun is a resident's personal website on Freewebs, with no indication provided of what their source is for that number. Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, which does not mean we can simply repeat any claim made by anybody on the web; sources have to be documented, verifiable and reputable, and a personal website with no source citations does not meet those criteria. Bearcat 08:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A weird but sophisticated anime that's currenly the vote leader at WP:AID and may become a featured article... with help. Since all of us working on the article know what we're taling about, we need outsiders to tell us what parts may be confusing for the uninitiated. -Litefantastic 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Over half the lead is about something called 'adult swim'. This is not en-US.wikipedia - or pretends not to be.
No meaningful references, #1 uncontroversial fact, #2#3#4 meaningless as 'reception' indicators.
Too much list and opinion-prose, not enough actual encylopedia content.
Feel free to ignore all this though, it's perfectly possible to get an anime article featured that deals only with North America. --zippedmartin 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably true, but still: thanks! -Litefantastic 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now over half the lead is plot summary, which kinda gives the wrong impression this is a narrative-heavy show... The best leads are just good article summaries. I'd worry about having enough non-'Notes and trivia' content to put in three short paragraphs. Oh, anmd pet peeve, it treats the work as if it's in a vacuum, bar some 'parody' mentions - it's not like Tsurumaki/Sadamoto et al had no influences and no impact. There are resources that can help. --zippedmartin 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fall into the 'outsider' category, because I hardly know what Anime is and I've never seen any of it. I haven't heard of FLCL and I don't think it'll be broadcast here in the UK. Here's my advice about the article:
The article looks like it covers everything that needs to be mentioned and I feel I know a reasonable amount about the series now that I've read it. The article doesn't go into a lot of technical detail about anime, so I understood everything.
Needs references!
"very, very heavy" - Remove repeated word by replacing with something like "extremely"?
"runs Naota over with her Vespa" - Maybe put 'motor scooter' after the Vespa word to clarify what it is? Otherwise I think people will assume it's a car unless they look at the link.
"If you look" - The second person shouldn't be used in articles.
"June 4 of 2006" "August 5 2006" - Slightly different date formats in third paragraph of lead.
In the third paragraph, it doesn't really matter when it was announced and that date has gone now, so could it be written to say what happened? Maybe remove "On June 4 of 2006, it was announced that Adult Swim would run" and replace with "Adult Swim ran"
The story section seems focussed on the start of the story. How does it conclude? Perhaps the episode articles are there to provide that information, which is fine if that's the intention.
Needs an endspoiler template, or remove the first spoiler tag because the section is called "story", so people will assume that it contains plot details.
Would be good if all the character links went directly to their sections.
"it created a large horn" - I don't see this on any of the pictures, is it invisible or inside his head or...? I'm confused.
"In the same manga scene the Japanese version uses" - That confused me a bit. I barely understand what Anime is and I have no idea what Manga is. The problem here is my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I think it would be useful to at least make 'manga' a link.
References should go after punctuation, instead of before.
I hope that's useful to you. Icey 12:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FLCL is an Ecchi so why isnt it on Wikipedia? The scences in the OVA is EZACTLY what an Ecchi is! SEXUAL COMADY! Am I wrong? Im gona put it up again if I comfirm this! *Self* "Wiki is Truth...HA Wiki is Lacking the Truth! Im the editor that will change that! I am SUPER EDITOR-SAN!!!O_O...um I um....look im for the the whole Wiki is Truth thing but make sure you dont leave everything out just because "Orginal Research!" Its stupid and not every site can tell tell you everything! You need "Orginal Research" sometime!--Lolicon-r.us 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine there is quite a lot of work to be done on this article, and I'd like it to be a good article in the future, if not featured. I'd appreciate any thoughts on how this article can be improved. Thanks, — FireFox(talk)12:57, 05 August '06
To start the article is lacking references, a few examples you might want to try and find references for are:
"It is one of the few towns in the UK to have a crater on Mars named after it."
"Although Stone Age finds have been made locally, it is the Romans who first gave Maidstone some importance. Their road from Watling Street at Rochester to Hastings across the Weald passed through the site, and two villas have been discovered. They were also among the first to extract stone (the sandstone known as Kentish Rag) from the area."
"There have been two Army barracks in Maidstone. One is now closed. The present Invicta Barracks is home to the Royal Engineers 36 Engineer Regiment, which includes 2 Gurkha field squadrons."
The article needs to be comprehensible, there is a statement in the article that says "Maidstone’s town status was confirmed when, in 1549, it was incorporated." That should be refed, and explained. What does it mean that it was confirmed and incorporated? Things of that nature, remember many people of different cultures may read the article and they may not understand what that statement means. The lead section is on the short side and could do with expansion, it might be a good idea to merge the headline sections "Early history" and "Town Status" into the lead section of the article. KOS | talk 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll start some work on this in the coming days. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. — FireFox(talk)19:43, 6 August '06
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok guys I've been struggling with this article for awhile now..getting help and getting time to sort it out..has been a pain to say the least. But all in all a good learning experience. Still I realllly wanna get it up to FAC status..so criticise without abandon..but be detailed because I don't have the time to go through it myself..I am also slightly blind to it's imperfections.
There are a number of images used in the article (such as Image:WaliKhan4.jpg) that we apparantly know nothing about. They're sourced to a webpage that doesn't contain the image. There's no information on the photographer or copyright holder. They are tagged as being public domain, but we cannot demonstrate that. Can some research be done on these images? They shouldn't have been uploaded without more information. Jkelly 22:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the information on the link to the site. What proof do I have to give? Can you post an example of a pic I coud use as a template? What about the rest of the article? Thanks --Zak 17:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this is my third request for peer review on this article, it's gone through some huge changes since i started working on it early last year. So what do you guys think? --Zak 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that there are many paragraphs with significant claims but no citations. For example, "Wali Khan accused Zulfiqar Bhutto of attempting to arrange his assassination" is uncited, yet it's a powerful accusation. The citations that are there aren't consistently formated. So I'd recommend using the appropriate cite templates as much as possible. Also, can you get any more images for the article? I only see the two near the top. The text "...chose not even participate..." seems improper. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comments, I think additional pictures are difficult to get because of copyright issues. but i'll see what improvemets I can make to teh rest as you suggested. check your page.. --Zak 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was initially created as response to a call for prior art documentation for Blackboard's recently filed patent. Given the activist impulse motivating the creation, we would appreciate the perspective of the broader Wikipedia community to ensure that the content itself is appropriately factual and written from a neutral point of view.
Also, many of the contributors are first-time Wikipedians. Therefore, any style suggestions would also be appreciated.
History articles normally start at the beginning and go through to the present (or the end). It's rather unusual that this article presents the most recent developments first.
I'd take out the blank line between bullet points, so more information fits on each screen.
Rather than display full URLs, add an intuitive name after each, e.g. Oncourse Press Release
Beef up the first paragraph a bit so someone stumbling across this article doesn't have to go to the linked article to find out what a Virtual Learning Environment is.
I made an attempt at this using some text from the linked article. Others may have further suggested improvements.
The "Unknown dates" section should probably be moved to the talk page, as it's a series of requests for information rather than the information itself.-gadfium 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been done.
“
Another way of breaking up text is to add quotes using the {{rquote}} (talk) template and its friends.
It would be nice to break up the text with pictures or quotes. For example, the keyboard picture from the PLATO article could be added to the 1976 section.-gadfium 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility would be to add a timeline. See m:EasyTimeline. It isn't easy to do, and the results don't always look good. See {{Timeline History of Computing}} for an example of an ambitious timeline which doesn't look very good (possibly due to my screen resolution).-gadfium 00:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a twice-failed FAC. However I believe that the concerns that were raised during the FACs have been addressed. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a close look at this article and see if you can spot anything else that might hinder a third FAC attempt. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some notes — I wrote this while reading random parts of the article, so they're not in order:
The disambiguation link problem I mentioned in the FAC was not a reference to the OtherUses-style templates, which is fine; I was talking about wikilinks in the article text that lead to disambiguation pages. Check the links in the article and change any reroute link to disambiguation pages to the correct article.
I just went through nearly every wiki-link in the article and addressed the disambiguation links. So I think that's done. — RJH (talk)
The "Dimensions" section may be misnamed. As a layperson, I would assume that the dimensions of a star would be the radius, circumference, volume, etc. Is luminosity typically referred to as a dimension of a star or would "characteristic" be a better term?
I changed it to "Units of measurements". Sorry, I'm used to thinking of dimensions in terms other than length. — RJH (talk)
I've also used dimensions in that sense, just looking out for the casual reader. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Dimensions" section is rather short - I would expect such a section to include information about typical or mean star sizes, but star size seems to be covered in a later section. Related information like this should be gathered in one place.
This section was deliberately intended to clarify the units of measurement before any discussion of star masses, radii, and so forth. I wanted to get that out of the way before hitting the heart of the article, so there would be no confusion. I'd really prefer that this not be all-encompassing section on star sizes. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the section is called "Units of measurement", I don't think this is a problem. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar radius is denoted with a capital , but the solar radius article uses a lowercase ; which is correct?
Star formation occurs in molecular clouds, ... and then three sentences later: Star formation begins with gravitational instability inside a molecular cloud, ...
I tweaked the text slightly. Otherwise I'm unclear about the concern. The first was an introductory paragraph to the section. The second paragraph is the actual mechanics. What is preferable? — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now. It's a little jarring to the reader to encounter such a similar phrase that close together, as the reader may not realize that the introductory paragraph overlaps with the next section. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The measurement "Gyr" is used - clicking on this link takes me to the article on year. I can deduce that Gyr stands for gigayear, but the year article does not mention gigayear. This is more of a problem with the year article, but it still confuses the average reader who most likely has not encountered gigayears often.
The Gyr was removed yesterday. I have a problem with the use of the word billion, which has an ambiguity. But apparently that's not an issue for others. So the article just uses billion consistently now. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The duration that a star spends on the main sequence depends primarily on the amount of fuel it has to burn and the rate at which it burns that fuel. In other words, its mass and luminosity. - This sentence tells me thatm for stars, mass=amount of fuel. However, iron contributes to the mass of a star and is not fuel.
When the star is first formed, the iron content is negligible. Iron is created as the very last product of the life cycle, and only after the star has left the main sequence. So yes, the statement is true. I'm not clear why it is an issue. — RJH (talk)
Now that you've clarified "initial mass", this makes more sense. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well really it's roughly the same amount of mass anyway, only converted into different elements. There is some mass loss due to the stellar wind, particularly in massive stars, and a tiny fraction of the overall mass is converted into energy. But I'm glad the rewording works for you. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The process of stars creating heavier metals seems to be covered twice.
Yes. I think it is appropriate that the "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" section also covers the specific nuclear reactions. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too crazy about covering it twice, but it may be the best way given the different treatments. This will probably be ok with the addition of a link, I'll look into that in a second. Pagrashtak 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mass can also be measured directly for stars in binary systems or through microlensing. - This sentence is a little confused.
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!
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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,[5] 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)[reply]
I'm hoping that this article is very close for FA status, so I'm putting it up for peer review now. I will add more information to the DVD release section and possibly some deleted scenes information, but other than that I think it covers all the bases. I apologize in advance if I don't respond to comments for awhile, since I'm about to be hit by Hurricane Ernesto in two days. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Issues: I'd replace the word "Movie" wherever it appears with the word "Film". It's more professional-sounding. The casting information needs referencing, such as Dreyfuss thinking one of his own performances was terrible. "The scene where Hooper discovers Ben Gardner's body" is mentioned but I wasn't sure who Ben Gardner is. It might also benefit the reader to explain briefly what 100 Years... 100 Movies and 100 Years... 100 Thrills are. I'd question "Reviews of the film were almost unanimously positive, evidenced by the 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes might be a good tool for contemporary movies, but with older stuff they don't usually have everything. The note at the end of the criticism section that the shark looks fake and that its a widespread opinion needs a reference. The Moby Dick stuff needs referencing too. Differences from the novel and sequel sections are listy. If we must have a sequel section, I'd model it after those in FAs Halloween (film) or Night of the Living Dead. Still, the topic is featured distworthy, and the article as is is pretty close, with the issues above probably easily fixable. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 09:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've dealt with all the issues here, except the last two. What particular information about Moby Dick do I need to cite? And how would I change the differences from the novel section into prose? Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited a few sentences dealing with Moby Dick and rewrote the sequel section into prose. If the references are looking really screwed up (as they are all over Wikipedia), add this: ?action=purge to the address bar when viewing the page.--Dark Kubrick 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to quibble, but Jaws was actually the first movie to make over $100 million in domestic rentals (i.e., the amount returned to distributors from U.S. and Canadian theaters as the distributors' share of the box office take) versus simple domestic grosses (ticket sales). The film's actual box office gross was closer to $170 - 180 million or so, I believe. The $85 million noted as The Godfather's box office gross was actually that film's domestic rental performance, which means it made well over $100 million in ticket sales, also. Prior to 1993, Variety, the film industry standard publication, used to report strictly domestic rentals as a gauge of a movie's performance, and at the end of the year would print a listing of all titles that had made $1 million dollars and more returned to distributors during the previous 12 month period. The magazine switched to listing box office grosses in 1993, presumably because everyone else by that time was doing so. Anyway, I think the article should be changed to reflect this. A good source of domestic rental/domestic gross information throughout the years is Michael Gebert's "The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards", but there should be plenty of other reliable sources that detail this info.Hal Raglan 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot to add that both Variety (at the end of 1975) and Gebert's book (which provides data from Variety archives) noted that Jaws was the first film to make over $ 100 million in domestic rentals.Hal Raglan 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble this is not. I am very glad you brought this to my attention, as I wish this article to be fully complete and accurate regarding the movie. I've changed the section and added a reference to reflect your suggestion. Thanks.--Dark Kubrick 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have sort've run wild with this project, and I am oblivious as to how it sounds to an outside reader, and to what it needs for improvement. It's not very long, but I'd like to know what kind of improvements can be made in order to bring it to Featured or Good Article status. Also, I realize that many will be turned off by the primary source, but remember that WP:NPS states "Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias." AdamBiswanger1 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that the text needs to be at Wikisource. Are the websites you are referencing the most reliable sources for this material? I would have expected to see more scholarly books. Jkelly 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly one of my thoughts, too. As soon as I take a trip to the library, I'll be able to come back with plenty of better resources. Although they probably aren't what Wikipedia would call "reliable", I think they're safe, and at worst interesting. Thanks for your input AdamBiswanger1 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware of the lack of references in this article, which I expanded from a one-sentence stub. Some of the issues that could be mentioned in a further expansion have been named already on the talk page, but as they are beyond my own knowledge, I'd like to make other editors aware of the article. Expertise and/or fluency in Arabic would be especially appreciated, but even just some pointers on the explanations given in the article or guidance on where to look for further references would be appreciated. Thanks. -Fsotrain09 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not familiar with Arabic, you might try Talk:Arabic language, Talk:Islam (that's more of a battlefield than a talk page usually), and similar places. Where to look would be for phrases like history of Arabic on the Internet or the local library; more specifically try Arabic proper nouns or Arabic definite article in your searches.
I'm more familiar with the Spanish language and can tell you that the Spanish el for the (masculine form) may have been changed because of this; at the least, it might get a mention for similarity. Although the French le would seem to support this, Italian uses il so I'm not sure. The article is a good start in any case. Best of luck, Moulder 10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent quite a bit of time on this one, using the original recordings, the script books, the three published biographies of Douglas Adams and the Pocket Hitchhiker's Guide as sources. I personally don't think it's quite ready for an FA nomination yet - I think some of the prose could be cleaned up just a little, and I'm not sure how readers will take to having references to books directly in the text (it seems that we've gotten away from that, in prose, and are just going for footnotes). It IS referenced, the photos DO have rationales posted, and it just passed WP:GA. I would love to get this to be the FIRST radio series feature article on Wikipedia though, so any and all comments are welcome (but be a little gentle, ok? ;). --JohnDBuell 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my...its a Trivia section. --Osbus 21:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, trivia sections are bad form, although it looks to be in prose now. Just remove the trivia header and convert the subsections to top-level and/or integrate them somewhere. See an example of what we try to do with trivia sections on Wikipedia - I haven't yet finished with Lucy though. Moulder 10:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's always been prose. I don't understand what the big fear of a 'Trivia' header is, provided it IS prose, not bullets. I always understood the problem was with too many bulleted lists, and not enough prose... --JohnDBuell 11:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if (to paraphrase) that which we call a trivia section by any other word would read as poignant, it's really about how you say it in this case. An example is an edit I once saw on my watchlist for evidence of evolution changing a section called "evidence from paleontology" to "evidence from fossils" - it's just not as encyclopedic-sounding. At least that's the official rationale. I suppose if this in a longer article a background/miscellaneous/other (depending on the type of article) would be okay, but personally, I do think the article flows better now sans trivia label. Anyway, good luck, I like. :)
One other thing is that I reversed the citations and ref tag; the ref tag could also optionally be in a separate "notes" (sub-)section, but WP has no official rules about citation style - one of our weaknesses IMO. Moulder 13:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks visually distracting to me to have notes AFTER the references list. The "References" are works that are not directly cited in the text, and thus not footnoted, and are mostly an exact list of the recordings, with ISBNs (though a couple of them are out of print). I don't see where having Notes and References as their own sections should be a problem, the main Hitchhiker's Guide article is set up in exactly the same way, with the same rationale. --JohnDBuell 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault! I should have looked more closely before commenting, because I was thinking of some other articles where the ref tags are for references to the references listed. In that case you're right. (On a related note, it's always seemed counter-intuitive to me to have inline citations as footnotes, which are usually reserved for notes in the sense of the one used in, say, encyclopedia. It does help manage the references, although they still become quite a mess in larger articles if you wish to cite an existing source earlier in the text, but I'll stop before I get into a full-on tangent. :P) Moulder 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the bottom line is that it does look a lot more readable to have the notes in one section and the references or bibliography or whatever we're calling it this week in its own section! ;) --JohnDBuell 20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of editing for date and ref formatting. The 2nd para of intro reads like a history lesson vice a summary of the article. The para beginning "Maggs stated in the new script" has two quotes that don't have footnotes. Refs should be in cite php format, esp if you want FA, some are just basically a web address. Doesn't matter if refs and notes are in separate section or not. I think the scope is good and a with a little copyedit will be fine.Rlevse 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page is intended to be a history of the radio series, without really explicitly saying as much. It's a sub-page to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and a super-page to the 1978/80 and 2004/05 radio series (which are linked so that they can be viewed in more specific detail). The link you pointed out was a goof, it looks like I copied and pasted it twice. And that sort of "old-school" inline citation naming the book and page I'll fix and change to using ref tags. Thanks for the help and advice, as always! --JohnDBuell 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already think this is an amazing article. Is it good enough to be FA? Lorty 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The table of contents seems longer than it really needs to be. I think a lot of the 'district' sections could be combined into a single section instead of having a separate section for every paragraph. The article also appears to be light on inline citations which would be a problem come FAC time.--Dekkanar 16:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating the Heysel disaster article for a peer review as I feel it's a subject that deserves as neutral an article as possible. I guess that I'm the main editor of the page, but I'm an English Liverpool FC fan, and so inherently biased. I've tried my best to make the article neutral, but I'd appreciate some others to read through it and offer constructive critisism.
A second problem I have as an editor is a lack of good sources. I also don't speak italian, so getting the Juventus perspective isn't easy. So I guess having an Italian speaker willing to put some effort into the page would help a great deal.
Some of the recent contributors to it:Strage dell'Heysel have Babel boxes listing them as en-3, perhaps one of those could help? Oldelpaso 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see what needs to be done to this article for possible inclusion into Wikipedia:Version 0.5 or Wikipedia:Version 1.0, or at least GA-class nomination. --Kitch 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope this doesn't meet the importance criterion, because if so, there's something wrong. Nothing personal of course, but wrestling (especially this kind) isn't the most encyclopedic topic, particularly on an international encyclopedia. Moulder 14:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is well written and comprehensive, covering all aspects of the topic with a detailed discography. I wonder how it can be inproved to reach a featured Article status. I guess some of the photos might be an obstacle. waiting for your opinion and help. --TeemeahGül Bahçesi 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Tarkan had actually broken into America with his English-language album, that extra newsworthiness could've made it a Featured Article (or at least put it somewhere on Wiki's front-page). Short of that, I don't know. It is a competant article. Maybe someone could read a bunch of Featured Articles at once, to see if there are any particular qualities or trends that set them apart. Also, I've entered "Tarkan" on Wiki's Suggested Feature Article page. Does that help? Maybe we can all do that, and with the same suggestion coming from multiple users and IP's, Wiki will listen. --68.164.83.80 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) a random Elizabeth (tongue nowhere near cheek)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated again - a year passed by, a lot of things were improved. Please review again. --TeemeahGül Bahçesi 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article could be improved; if it were, I hope we can make it a WP:FAC candidate. Please leave feedback here. --TheM62Manchester 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments: For a regional page it's a tad on the short side. The only section that's significantly developed is "environs and divisions". The "cuisine" and "places of interest" sections are just lists. I'd rather see something more descriptive. The page doesn't yet meet the citeria for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work that is mentioned at the top of this page. It's a decent start, but I'd like to see 2-3 times as much good material, along with citations and references. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I wrote this a while ago. I think it is fairly comprehensive, well-referenced, well-written, etc., but would I think it would benefit if more people looked at it and/or commented on it. Thanks.--SB | T 03:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I preferred the crushing silence to the stunningly unhelpful automated suggestions... --SB | T 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick comments just to break the silence:
"an American novel" - if it was specifically an example of "The American Novel" this might be worth stating, otherwise just "a novel" will do, maybe "a novel by American author, Philip José Farmer".
"but there is some dispute"..."the novel is infamous for its" - says who? These statements need citations.
The entire "Overview" section needs copyediting (it has a different style to the rest of the article) and references.
"limited to 200 copies signed by Farmer" could be rephrased to make clear whether only 200 copies of the run were signed, or whether the run consisted solely of 200 signed copies.
Some images would help. A limited number of photos of the cover art would be covered by the fair use provisions. Yomanganitalk 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come a long way and is currently approaching critical mass, but still needs some more sourcing and (as mentioned before) book sourcing. However, in addition to general opinions, I'd like to focus on the reference system. For instance, the DVD extras are not consistent; in one I have "Westmore, Michael. Interview conducted on..." and another, with multiple references, simply says "Source: Whatever DVD extra". How should I go about integrating these? I could change "References" to "Notes" and, after listing the DVD extras in the References section, put notes stating who the interviewee was and what date (which is included in all interviews). Alternately, we might simply genericize all the DVD extras, i.e. remove specifics about who and when the interview was. Simply put, I'm not sure how to tackle this.
The other thing is in (what is currently) footnotes 9 and 15, two websites are listed in each note. Should these be changed to "formal" footnotes with "Last name, first name. Blah blah blah..." and included as separate? On #9 that would seem to be redundant, but I'm aiming for consistency, so as stated above, maybe I should scrap the last name, first name formality. Again, not too sure. Moulder 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the lists of main and supporting characters chould be removed from the main article because 1-they are already discussed in paragraphs about the main and then supporting characters and 2-there is a link to a sub article which seems to cover the same ground as these two lists. I did a preview edit removing the two lists and it took out about 7kb of material.--Dekkanar 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, and yeah, that would make it a lot cleaner; the main cast is covered in the text and the recurring characters who aren't discussed are in the sub-article. It's also bugged me that people kept changing or adding on to the ranks part of the table, so this will solve that. I hope someone comments on the references issue though. Moulder 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm looking to making this become an FA (I figure it's time to get an FA, I've been here long enough :) I'd especially appreciate comments on structure, and whether you're left with significant questions at the end of reading it. I have more information which could possibly be incorporated, but I'm trying not to let the article bloat too much, so information on what other people feel they're missing out on would be really helpful. More eyes in terms of copyediting would also be helpful. But, of course, I welcome any questions or comments which you think will lead to this becoming a better article. Thanks very much for your time. Mak(talk) 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dum de dum, twiddle the fingers, GA is so slow!!!. Not really too much wrong with the article, but yes, a thorough copyedit at one point won't go amiss. I'll give it a go ASAP (now, if not sooner). It would be nice to know what exactly was the range of these fascinating ladies, also tessitura, (I wouldn't have thought too high; as far as I'm aware the emphasis at the time (and until and during Handel) was on vocal virtuosity and brilliance and ornamentation and embellishment (i.e showing off), but not on range, but maybe these girls were an exception, and I could be wrong anyway, as the whole area seems rather disputed. And what exactly was the vocal composition of the group; all sopranos? I'd have thought not, as certainly I'd have wanted some contraltos to provide ballast and a touch of gravitas (which was presumably what the bass did before he got fired). Superbly referenced, BTW. Great article; I hope it gets to FA status quickly. Cheers, Moreschi 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm working on finding that info without doing too much original research right now. Mak(talk) 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Grove article on sopranos in conjunction with Newcomb's music supplement: the highest note given for sopranos for pre-1600 was g''. The highest note given in Newcomb's supplement is a'', with fairly common g''s. Just from looking over some of the music, it does seem to be in a high tessitura, especially for the period. A number of the pieces stay between e'' and g'' in the upper voice. I guess that's one of the few sentences I left unreferenced, but it comes from the Grove article on Monteverdi, I've added that in. Hopefully my recent edits have made the makeup of the ensemble clearer, even though it evolved through time. From 1577-1580 Brancaccio sang with whomever the duke forced him to sing with, which at times included the ladies. After this, no more men sang with the women who comprised the concerto delle donne (which had a million and a half names, check out the redirects), and the musical role they would play in terms of depth of texture or harmonic basis, was taken over by instruments (as shown in the quote about Caccini, hopefully). Unfortunately, discussion of the ensemble is not cut and dried, because it changed through time, without necessarily completely clear breaks between what we would consider periods. This is in part in reference to Peirigill's comments below. In short, it seems that after the dismissal of Brancaccio, the group was made up entirely of women, and that these women were sopranos (in fact Grove's article on sopranos mentions the singers of the Ferrarese court in the lede) who either accompanied themselves on their respective instruments, or Luzzaschi and Fiorino on keyboard and lute respectively. I'll go check that that's clear. Thanks Moreschi. Mak(talk) 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peirigill 1
I'm giving it the old "what would Tony say?" copyedit:
LEDE
"The Concerto delle donne (lit. consort of ladies) was a group of professional female singers established by Duke Alfonso II of Ferrara in 1580 and active until the court was dissolved in 1597." The first sentence should explain the meaning of the term and the notability of the topic. Leave any other details until later in the lede. How about something like "The Concerto delle donne (lit. consort of ladies) was a group of professional female singers in the late Renaissance court of Ferrara, renowned for their technical and artistic virtuosity. Established by Duke Alfonso..." Also, why is "Concerto" capitalized here but nowhere else in the article?
Done? Mak.
The lede looks too short. It should be an abstract of the article, summarizing the important points and not including anything not mentioned later. My rule of thumb is that if something is important enough to merit a section heading, it should be mentioned in the lede. I'd like to see some mention of the evolution of the group and a description of their music in the lede.
Hm, according to AndyZ's automated script it is (and was when you wrote that comment) too long, although it's been expanded. I anticipate it changing a lot, but is it better now? Mak
Apparent contradiction: The lede says that "The Concerto delle donne (lit. consort of ladies) was a group of professional female singers," but the History section says "In the beginning, the concerto delle donne was comprised of talented amateurs." I suggest removing or replacing "professional" in the first sentence, and mentioning the transition to professional membership in the part of the lede that summarizes the History section.
As I've already mentioned, the terminology is somewhat muddied. One of the major aspects that makes this group interesting is the fact that they were professional, so leaving that out of the lede sentence doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully subsequent edits to the lede have made this more clear. Mak
"Giacomo Vincenti, a music publisher, praised the women as "virtuose giovani" (virtuosic youths) in 1598, echoing the sentiments of contemporary diarists and commentators, who praised the women in their writings." Lots of commas here, which impede flow. How about "Music publisher Giacomo Vincenti"? Also, you're repeating yourself; Vincenti praised the women, and commentators praised the women. Can you restructure the sentence so that you only use "praised" once? Either find another word for "praised," or simplify the structure to something like "Music publisher Giacomo Vincente echoed the sentiments of contemporary diarists and commentators when he praised the ladies as 'virtuose giovani'" or "Music publisher Giacomo Vincente praised the ladies as 'virtuose giovani,' echoing the sentiments of contemporary diarists and commentators." I'd leave out the 1598, at least in the lede, since the lede should be about the big picture. Leave such details for the main article.
Done? Mak
"it revolutionised both women's role in professional music, and was..." "Both" isn't grammatical here. "Women's role" seems odd to me. I'm changing it to "the role of women," but feel free to revert that if you like.
Done?
"was a major propaganda victory for the Este court." The ensemble wasn't really "propaganda," was it? See if you like my rewording.
Google books As I see it, the concerto was propaganda in that part of its purpose was to project the power and prestige of the Este court to other groups of nobles. The music was gaurded, the women were treated as prized posessions (perhaps that is too strong, but the duke was careful to find them suitable husbands within his own court), and Alfonso showed it off at every opportunity. They always travelled with him. This fits in with my concept of propaganda, but of course better and clearer wordings are always welcome. Mak
"The concerto delle donne was imitated throughout Italy." Really? Even in Sicily and Sardinia? By the common folk as well as in the courts? I thought it was mostly a northern Italian phenomenon. That seems confirmed in the "Influence" section, where you say it "became a cliché of northern Italian courts." If it was really imitated and not just discussed throughout Italy, you need to cite this fact; if you just summarized this imprecisely, then you need to reword the lede. How about "Word of the ladies' ensemble spread across Italy, inspiring imitations in the powerful northern courts of the Medici and Orsini"? (I'm leaving out "families" as redundant; if you think it needs to be made explicit that the Medici and Orsini were families, please put that word back in.)
Much better now, thank you. The cliche bit I think is well sourced now. Mak
"The foundation of the concerto delle donne was the most important development in secular Italian in the last third of the sixteenth century, the period leading up to the development of opera." This sentence needs some work. I think "founding" clearer than "foundation," which has other meanings. There seems to be a word missing: "in secular Italian" music? culture? I'm not clear what the connection is between the ladies and opera history. Are you trying to say that the founding of the concerto delle donne was a critical step towards the development of opera? If so, that's not clear; "the period leading up to the development of opera" feels like an afterthought. If the ladies weren't key to the creation of opera, then just leave the bit about opera out. However, I suspect they were. See if you like my tentative edit.
I do like your edit. The connection with opera is not explicitly stated in any of my sources (that I remember so far...), but there are many links, and I think looking at the social structures and music in the context of developing opera is a good way to understand better... Perhaps someone will write a doctoral thesis on it soon. I could expound more on the connections of you'd like. The sources I have mostly connect them to opera through connections with the Commedia dell'arte. Mak
HISTORY
"First period" and "Second period" are bland. What about "Musica secreta" and "Professional reorganization"?
I think I've misled you as to what musica secreta means. It refers to the social construct of chamber music made for a small select audience, and extends before and after the concerto delle donne, and was present in courts which did not have a concerto delle donne. The concerto secreto were the people who made the music. and ""The concerto secreto at Ferrara was usually called the concerto delle donne, or the ladies' ensemble, in recognition of the most striking feature of the ensemble - its three or four highly skilled female singers." (Newcomb 1980 pg 4)
Was Luzzasco the only composer for the early group?
Yes. Mak
"Vittoria Bentivoglio (a member of the Bentivoglio family)." It's obvious that Vittoria was a member of the Bentivoglio family. If there's something about the Bentivogli that merits a separate link, you should specify what that is. Something like "...and Vittoria Bentivoglio. Vittoria's presence added to the ensemble's notoriety, since the Bentivoglio family had a reputation for fantastic diva fits, the likes of which would not be seen again until Project Runway."
Sorry, that was pre-stub info. Mak
"and the bass Giulio Cesare Brancaccio." Huh? What's a dude doing in the concerto delle donne?
Responded elsewhere. Mak
Still a problem, I'm afraid. The Formation section starts: "At the court in Ferrara was a collection of highly skilled but amateur ladies... This group, which led to the formation of the concerto delle donne, performed within the context of the Duke's musica secreta... This preliminary group was originally made up of talented but amateur members of the court:[4] the sisters Lucrezia and Isabella Bendidio, Leonora Sanvitale, Vittoria Bentivoglio, and the bass Giulio Cesare Brancaccio." You're still identifying the group as all-female, and then inserting Brancaccio without comment. You should either describe the group in more vague terms, or (preferably) explain Brancaccio separately. See if you like my edit. Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to better explain nomenclature+Brancaccio. Mak
**"It was viewed as an extraordinary and new phenomenon in 1580, and most witnesses did not connect the second period of the concerto delle donne with the group of ladies who sang in the musica secreta during the first period." I'm taking out "in 1580," because you had just mentioned that in the previous paragraph. Is it accurate to say "It was an extraordinary and novel phenomenon"? If contemporaries didn't link the musica secreta with the concerto delle donne, and the staffing and performance venue were totally different, why do we link them now? I don't understand the connection.
Responded elsewhere. Mak
I'm leaving in my suggestion of "extraordinary and novel phenomenon" instead of "extraordinary and new phenomenon." It's mostly aesthetic on my part, so use it or not as you prefer. (Virtuosic three-part women's polphony wasn't wholly new; there are such pieces in the Codex Las Huelgas, although the courtiers wouldn't have known about that.) Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The most dominant member..." Does "dominant" admit of degree? How about "prominent" or "virtuosic" or "talented" or "renowned"?
Done. Mak
**"The most dominant member...followed by..." implies a ranking, in which Laura is more dominant than Anna and Anna is more dominant than Livia. How about "The most prominent membe
"followed by Anna Guarini (daughter of Giovanni Battista Guarini)." Why is Giovanni important? If he's important, mention him and explain his importance to the ensemble in a separate sentence. If he's not important, remove the whole parenthetical phrase (parenthetical phrases impede flow (see?)).
Done. Mak
"The maestro di capella at the time was Ippolito Fiorini (1568–1597)." If the maestro doesn't compose or direct, what the heck does he do? "At the time" is unclear. Because you're giving Fiorini's dates, the phrase is also slight redundant. Would it be correct to say "Ippolito Fiorini (1568–1597) was the group's first maestro di capella"?
Clarified? He was in charge of music for the whole court, not just the musica secreta, but he also performed with them on the lute.
"the duke specifically asked his wife Margherita Gonzaga to bring Laura Peverara with her from Mantua as part of her retinue when they were married because of Peverara's musical abilities." I can't help but poke a little fun here... What?! Margherita married Laura? Did the Pope know? And she married her because of her musical abilities? That sounds filthy and dirty and unwholesome. Tell me more! (Seriously, the sentence needs a little restructuring. I'm excising "when they were married" because it doesn't really add to the point you're making.)
Yeah, I kinda suck at writing. I think you or Mark fixed that. Mak
Egads! I was typing in my comments as I went along and then I must have accidently used that window to look something up and closed it. Oh well, Peirigill's editing it right now anyway, so I'll take a break and avoid edit conflicts. MarkBuckles 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of the redundancies are because of stubs which didn't used to exist but now do. I think most of these issues have been resolved, mainly by the work of yourself and Mark. The sentence in the lede didn't work, because Ferrara had been a center of musical innovation since the 13th century, but this was when it was really re-vamped, and Alfonso really claimed that tradition and made something of it. There's some confusion both within and among my sources about what constitutes the realconcerto delle donne. Newcomb basically splits it into two periods, which makes a lot of sense. I think it's important to include the earlier period, because Luzzaschi was already experimenting with the new vocal textures with them, he introduced Brancaccio into the mix. These were basically the first professional women musicians of the time and place, but they didn't start out being seen as professionals, and in that way were more connected with the first group. Contemporaries may have seen the group as entirely new, but it grew out of this earlier group. The names you suggest for the two periods are somewhat misleading, as the second period of the concerto also performed in the musica secreta. As for a man in the concerto delle donne, what was surprising and exciting about them was the number of womens' voices all together, and that a man was also there singing the bass part I don't think would have detracted from this interesting novelty. And yes, I use way too many subordinate clauses and parenthetical statements. I confess it to you all. Purge me of my sin! :) Mak(talk) 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had to break off editing shortly after discovering our edit conflict on the article, even forgetting to sign above. Oops! Well, let's continue...
HISTORY, continued...
"The singers in the second group were upper-class, but were not of sufficient standing to have been included in the inner circle of the court, were it not for their abilities as performers. The only member of the second concerto who was a member of the nobility was Livia d'Arco, but only a very minor branch." Tony objects to repeated words. "Were" appears three times in the first sentence, "member" and "only" twice each in the second. Watch out for that as you edit.
"The only member of the second concerto who was a member of the nobility was Livia d'Arco, but only a very minor branch. The remainder of the second group was not of the nobility;" Similarly, these sentences repeat the same information; if Livia was the only noble, then we already know the others weren't. Same goes for "obliquely infiltrated." "Infiltrate" already implies indirect, clandestine action. I think I have a workable fix.
Looks good to me. I'll keep looking for redundancies and repeated words, but it's always a help to have more eyes. Mak
"the city devolved to the papacy." Is this the correct usage of "devolved"? The article on devolution that you link to doesn't describe this situation. "Reverted" to the papacy, maybe?
The source I had said "devolved", but you're right, it doesn't quite make sense (in fact it's the opposite. I think what happened was that the popes, a couple centuries before, entrusted the Este with the city of Ferrara, and after much angling, and several "natural"-born dukes, the line finally couldn't hold it anymore when Alfonso failed to produce an heir. I've changed the wording to reverted. Mak
Peirigill 2
CAPTIONS
Per WP:CAPTION, take advantage of some FA reviewers' preference for captions that are complete sentences. Use your captions to expand on the article so they illustrate the article rather than just decorating it.
"The Estense palace in Ferrara." Can you say something like "The ladies of the concerto performed in the Estense palace in Ferrara"? (Note: I've elaborated on the description for this caption. Please feel free to edit if I said anything incorrect. --Moreschi 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"Scudi, the payment members of the concerto received." Can you use this caption to comment on the burgeoning economies of the Italian noble families or city-states?
How about getting the frontispiece of one of Luzzaschi's scores? Better yet, an excerpt of the score of one of his songs, showing a virtuosic line with lots of thirty-second notes?
Working on it. I haven't found any facsimiles of any of the music in question, and I'm hesitant to use Newcomb's editions. I'll see what I can do about musical examples. Mak
More later... Peirigill 05:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love the info on Guarini! Good addition.
Looking over our collective edits so far, three things still leap out at me:
It's still not clear whether the musica secreta is the concerto version 1.0 or not. The lede still says that the concerto was made of professional women, but the musica secreta is amateur and mixed. If the musica secreta is a version of the concerto, the lede needs a broader definition. If not (which I suspect is the case), then the History section needs to state that more clearly, starting with revised section headers. From what I've seen, I recommend referring to the musica secreta as the "precursor" of the concerto delle donne, not an early stage of it.
The organization doesn't yet make sense to me. Paragraphs are too short. The Influences section seems like it's out of place. The paragraph explaining the transition from the musica secreta to the concerto (the one starting "The duke did not start out by announcing the beginning of an all female and professional musica secreta") comes several paragraphs after it looks like we're done talking about the musica secreta and have moved on to the concerto.
I still don't understand how the ladies functioned as propaganda, which is still mentioned in the Influences section.
I'll look at the Music section tomorrow. Good work so far! Peirigill 06:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The organization still sucks, but I hope the musica secreta and propaganda issues are clearer to you now. Apologies for any and all edit conflicts. Mak(talk) 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this edit clarify enough? I thought that the first paragraph in the lede could focus on the main group, the group of professionals, and the second paragraph would give the background of the earlier group of women. Is that still too unclear, in conjunction with the change in wordings/headings in the History section? Mak(talk) 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's O.K, but when did what we might recognise as the forerunners of the Concerto (i.e the first amateur group) first perform? At the moment it seems as though the profs started in 1580, but a date for the amateurs isn't specified (in fact, dates as a whole are all a bit fuzzy). Best, Moreschi 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, 1580 is when the professional group started. The other group is not as clear. Brancaccio came in 1577 (left in 1583, I think I had that wrong before). Newcomb basically gives "the 1570s" as the time period for some members of the earlier group. The group of amateur ladies was more complete and coherent by 1577, but it's not as though there was a "founding" it was more like something that happened which became a fad within the court, which led to professionals being hired. Can you tell me what other dates are unclear? Mak(talk) 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see how you've clarified it and it's now perfectly comprehensible. I now think the only problem remaining is that two paragraphs in the "Music" section need fleshing out, and another one in the "Influence" bit. Apart from that, pretty much all of the concerns raised in this productive peer review seem to have been addressed - Bravo! Cheers, Moreschi 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peirigill 3
Peirigill here again. Great job so far.
I've tweaked the captions.
Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include words from the article's title, so "Concerto delle donne proper" won't work. I've suggested a slight restructuring and renaming.
I like what you've done. Mak
MUSIC
"Lodovico Agostini's third book of madrigals was perhaps the first publication," and later, "Claudio Monteverdi's Canzonette a tre voci was probably influenced." "Perhaps" and "probably" will be challenged as weasel words. You should either reword it ("was among the first publications" or "was an early publication") or make it explicit in the footnote that the source that you're citing says "perhaps" and "probably."
As much as I would like to avoid "Weasel words" there is only so much I can do. There is not a complete historical record for this period, not every music book published survives. My sources equivocate, and so I feel duty-bound to equivocate as well. I've double checked these two instances with the sources, and I feel they now accurately reflect what is expressed in those sources. Mak
"Lodovico Agostini's third book of madrigals was perhaps the first publication to exploit the new singing style made famous by the group. It contains pieces dedicated to Guarini." Tony will definitely challenge any use of the word "it" whose antecedent is remote: does "it" refer to the book, the publication, the style, or the group? The challenge is that Tony frowns on repeating words from one sentence to the next. I'm taking out "made famous by the group," since I think that context is understood.
I like your fix. Mak
"Giaches de Wert also wrote for the group." "Also" is a red-flag word. Especially in light of Giaches' earlier history with the group, is there something else you can say? Even "Giaches de Wert wrote canzonetti for the group" or "wrote the madrigal Ho fame da lupo for the group" would let you avoid the dreaded "also."
Fleshed out a bit, hopefully haven't introduced new problems. Mak
"the first true musical monuments" is POV, but if your source supports this, you should be okay. Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Although works for three voices were most clearly written for this new group, solo singing with accompaniment and diminutions also remained an important skill." "Although" is another word Tony will pounce on, unless it indicates a clear contradiction. Do you mean to say that accompanied solos with diminutions were less likely to have been written for the group? I'll try a rewording.
Hm, excellent point. The contrast is between what was composed for the group, and what the performance practice of the group was. Solo singing to accompaniment with diminutions was a normal practice, even before the concerto delle donne. It is difficult to say whether pieces written in this style by composers who were in close contact with the Ferrarese court were written with the ladies of the concerto in mind. However, works written with diminutions for a number of voices by composers within the sphere of influence of the Ferrarese court can be said to be influenced by the concerto. But, even though it wasn't revolutionary to do so, the ladies in the group did sing solo madrigals with accompaniment and diminutions. I'll try to clarify this. Mak
"the exemplar of the musical style of the concerto delle donne." Tony doesn't like repeated use of the phrase "of the." I've tried one fix; you might also say "of the musical style made famous by the concerto delle donne."
Both and. I've re-ordered this, is it clearer now?
"so that the duke could start his own concerto delle donne. The works he mentions are an ornamented four voice madrigal." Who is the "he" who mentions it: the duke, or Striggio? Beware pronouns with remote antecedents! Also, is "duke" capitalized or not? That should be made consistent throughout the article.
When the context is "the duke did foo" it should be lowercase. When the context is within a title or full name, it should be capitalized. I think I've made this consistent. I've replaced "the duke" with "Francesco", which will hopefully clarify who "his own" refers to. Is this then redundant? Possibly, but I think such an emphasis on ownership is important.
Ok, apparently not, I don't know. I suppose if it's a specific duke it's Duke and if it's a class it's duke. At least it's consistent, though. Mak
"Alessandro Striggio ... wrote letters about the concerto delle donne, and also wrote pieces. The works he mentions..." Repeated use of "wrote" and inconsistent shift from past tense ("wrote") to present tense ("mentions"). I've put in a fix.
Looks good. Mak
"The output of the ducal printer, Vittorio Baldini, was largely of music written for the concerto delle donne, including the madrigals of the foremost madrigalists, Luzzasco Luzzaschi, Carlo Gesualdo, and Alfonso Fontanelli. His first work for the duke was Il lauro secco (1582), which was followed by Il lauro verde (1583), both of which contained music by the foremost madrigalists of the time." "Foremost" is POV. Is this your opinion, Newcomb's opinion, or Baldini's opinion? (Luzzaschi and Gesualdo I might let slide, but who's Fontanelli?) I know I'm nitpicking, but the FA reviewers will do citation checks, and will challenge footnoted claims that assert more than the original source does. Tony will NOT let the repetition of "madrigal" in the phrase "the madrigals of the foremost madrigalists" slide, especially when followed immediately by "the foremost madrigalists of the time" in the next sentence. If you need to specify "of the time" in the second sentence, why did you omit that qualification in the first sentence? This paragraph needs to be re-written, and I'm not sure how to do it.
The Fontanelli thing is not my POV, but Newcomb's. I remember thinking it was weird, as I'd never heard of him, and double checking. I don't know how to make this sort of POV issue clearer without constantly writing "Newcomb, who's the person who's done all the work in this area and written all the articles on all these people in Grove, and is constantly cited in other works on the period and whose book is held up as a pillar of scholarship, says Foo." which seems excessive :) Unfortunately, my laptop with my notes has died and I don't have access to that page of that article, so I can't triple check. The redundancy is because of excessive copy-pasting. It might still need expansion or integration, but it's no longer as redundant.
"castrati were shortly to become the biggest stars of the new art form of opera." "Biggest stars" is POV unless you give a citation. Tony will likely object to the repetition of the word "of" in the phrase "of the new art form of opera." I've trimmed this down.
I didn't do it :) I think this has now been sufficiently modified and cited.
"no less than four castrato roles, showing just how dominant the castrato voice was at this time." Tony will object to "no less than." Is four really such a significant number that it proves the dominance of the castrato voice? Since it's not self-evident, it looks like either original work or an unverified claim — both no-nos.
Four out of either 8 or 9, depending on what you count, according to Grove. I'd say half is pretty significant. Source added.
"Orazio Urbani, having waited several years to see the concerto, complained that he was forced to play cards while listening to the women, as well as admire and praise their music." Was he forced to admire and praise the music? Do you even need to include this whole final clause (" as well as admire and praise their music")? This clause doesn't contribute to your main point.
Yes, he was annoyed because he had to focus on giving meaningful and intelligent critiques of the womens' skill while at the same time playing cards. I think it's interesting, funny, and shows how even an important ambassador (that info has been added) had to wait to be invited into the exclusive musica secreta, and also shows something about the concerts (that they played cards, which is odd). I've reworded it to make the connection clearer.
Oh! And, the Duke didn't want people simply to passively hear them, he was really excited by them and would talk about them all the time, to the point of boring people to tears apparently, so this begins to show that (although it doesn't say that it's the duke doing the forcing.) Mak
Speaking of your main point, this paragraph seems to be missing a topic sentence, like "The elite, hand-selected audience members favored with admission to performances by the concerto delle donne demanded diversions and entertainment beyond the pleasures of beautiful music alone." Otherwise, why include the line about dancing dwarves? It sticks out awkwardly unless it's supporting some general statement about the music, especially since it's in the Music section.
Ok, for now I've split out a performance section, and stolen your topic sentence. Mak
"After having earlier seen" - two of these four words are redundant. I've fixed it, but wanted to point it out as the kind of thing to keep an eye out for.
"Having seen the concerto delle donne in Ferrara, Giulio Caccini created a rival group, sponsored by the Medici family, made up of Caccini's family and a pupil, who traveled to Paris and performed for Maria de' Medici." Tony will call this a "snake," a sentence that's too long for easy comprehension, suffering from trying to include too many ideas at once. Can you split it into two sentences — and not repeat any words?
meh. I've attempted. Mak
I've tried to further streamline this. Mak
"There was even a rival group in Ferrara, formed by Alfonso's sister Lucrezia d'Este, Duchess of Urbino. She had lived at the Este court since 1576, and shortly after Margherita's marriage to Alfonso in 1579, Alfonso and his henchmen killed Lucrezia's lover, straining relations within the royal family." Another snake. Do you need to mention "shortly after Margherita's marriage to Alfonso"? It's distracting keeping all the players straight, and both Margherita and the marriage seem irrelevant to Lucrezia. How about "after Alfonso's marriage in 1579" or just simply "in 1579"? Why does Lucrezia's murdered lover matter anyway? Did Lucrezia start her rival group in revenge for the murder? Seems like an awfully indirect way to go about things; why not just poison someone? If the murder is relevant to the formation of the rival group, that connection needs to be clarified. If not, this whole murder affair comes across as cruft.
Why would you set up a group, when an equivalent group was performing nightly in your own house? This is attempting to answer that question, and add a bit of human interest at the same time. She was jealous of her young and beautiful sister-in-law, and pissed at her brother for murdering her lover. She wasn't upset enough to kill, she just didn't want to hang out in her rival's room every night. I wouldn't say it was for revenge, she just wanted to have something separate. I've tried to clarify this. Mak
"Barbara Strozzi is thought to be the last of the composers and performers in this style." "Is thought to be" is a weasel phrase, unless you cite a reference to confirm the uncertainty. Was she or wasn't she? How about "was among the last" or "was the last major musician to compose and perform in this style"? ("Major" would still require a citation, to avoid being POV.)
From Springfels. Gr. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do when my sources don't declaim everything. I've reworded it somewhat, and cited it. Mak
passaggi, cadenze, tirate, and accenti. What are these? The reader shouldn't have to click on a link to understand what you're talking about.
They're 16th century ornaments. Is that not clear? I thought giving even brief descriptions of these within the article would be too crufty. At issue is not the nature of the ornaments themselves, but that some were current, and others out of date. Oh, I see, I used the word "device" so as not to use the word "ornament" for the 5 millionth time. I'll change it to ornament. rrg. I think it makes more sense now. Mak
Defs added. Mak
"The diminutions and ornaments that the ladies sang together were written and rehearsed in advance, transforming the ornaments from improvisations to highly developed musical forms, orchestrated mainly by the composer." This last phrase seems to contradict the earlier part of the sentence. If the women worked out their own diminutions and ornaments, how could the composer orchestrate them? If the orchestration reflects a later practice that developed from the ladies' earlier improvisations, that needs to be made clear. Splitting this sentence in two would probably help.
I'm beginning to think it wasn't the case that the women wrote out their own ornaments. As much as I respect Springfels (who is primarily a performer), I don't see anything else to support it, and plenty of things which make it not make sense, so I'm removing that bit.
Still problematic, and now even harder to grasp as a single sentence now that (at my request) you're pausing to define diminutions. Would it be correct to say "Polyphonic arrangements called for the women to sing diminutions (melodic divisions of longer notes) and ornaments in consort. To coordinate their voices, they transcribed and rehearsed the music in advance, transforming these articulations from improvisations into highly developed musical forms that composers would utilize"? Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over this, I realized we can simplify this: "Polyphonic arrangements called for the women to sing diminutions (melodic divisions of longer notes) and ornaments in consort. To coordinate their voices, they transcribed and rehearsed the music in advance, transforming these improvisations into highly developed musical forms that composers would utilize." (Keep "articulations" in mind as a synonym for "ornaments," though.) (Tony may still object to the word "their" being too far from its antecedent "women," but I don't see an easy fix.) Peirigill 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duly stolen, plus another sentence to add that we don't know but think they might have made up their own ornaments in solo singing. You're right that I/we should be careful about repetition of the word ornament, but I'd like to point out that I don't think "articulation" would be a good choice as a synonym in this period of music, because it refers more to a style of playing the specific pre-written notes (as in different accents) rather than diminutions or passaggi or ornaments. I'd use passaggi more, but I think it might be too specialised.
The word "ornament" appeared eight times in this paragraph. Ouch. I think I've knocked it down to just one.
:'(
INFLUENCE
"!--This wording might be too close to Newcomb--" Then reword it, if my reorganization of the paragraph wasn't enough, or quote him directly.
The structure and wording have changed enough that I feel comfortable removing that comment. Mak
"It was a powerful tool of propaganda, projecting an image of power and affluence. The concerto delle donne was so influential and often imitated that it became a cliché of northern Italian courts." This borders on POV: "powerful," "so influential," "often imitated," and "cliché." See if you can neutralize the language, or quote directly from a source that uses that language. Isn't it also true that these women's ensembles were a bit of a fad and a flash in the pan, especially as the new musical instruments available in the baroque moved the focus of musical activity from choral polyphony to virtuosic solos, keyboard, and orchestral works? I know that when I was researching polyphonic choral music for women for my early music ensemble a few years ago, I found little Renaissance polyphony for women aside from Luzzaschi. I think you should say something about the decline of this tradition as well as its heyday, both in terms of the popularity of the music and the fortunes of the courts whose patronage supported them.
Can I just jump up and down instead of addressing this? It's a fair question, but it's all sourced to the best possible sources. The women of the Ferrarese court and concerto delle donne are mentioned in the intros/ledes of "Viruosa" and "Soprano" in Grove, and both of these concepts are extremely important, IMHO, to the growth of opera, and other 16th century music. The instrumental music was imitating the vocal virtuosos, not the other way around. I wouldn't exactly call this music "choral polyphony", an important aspect of it was emoting madrigal texts, and although I suspect the written out diminutions didn't contain too many parallel fifths, they did contain surprising dissonances. In fact at some point Newcomb talks about how Artusi may have been referring to the practices of the concerto delle donne in his big rant about how awful new music was. Perhaps the very specifics of three women singing concerted madrigals was a "flash in the pan" which lasted full strength for at least 30 years (a long flash compared with Punk-Emo-Hardcore, short compared with Gregorian chant) but I would argue that their influence was more important and far-reaching than the specifics of the ensemble. I think, if anything, I've understated their influence. Mak(talk) 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you still need to remove the repetition of "It was a powerful tool of propaganda, projecting an image of power and affluence. Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GENERAL
The Influence section seems too short, and the Music section too long. Maybe the Music section could be dedicated to a musicological analysis of the music while practical aspects (like the card-playing and dwarf-tossing, and the availability of scores and texts) could be split off into a Performance section? I'm moving the paragraph about rival groups from the Music section to the Influence section. Adding in information about the decline of this tradition will help make the Influence section more comprehensive and less stubby.
You're right, I'll work on it. Mak
I'm still concerned about the lede. I've revamped it so it says something about each section of the article, although I suspect there are things in the article important enough to mention in the lede. Nothing should go in the lede that isn't mentioned in the main article, but Vincenti only appears in the lede, and I don't see much of the "diarists and commentators" in the main article. I suspect that AndyZ's tool was saying that you have too many paragraphs in the lede given the number of words in the article. The lede isn't too long, it's too choppy. I'll bet combining paragraphs so there are only two in the lede will remove that warning from AndyZ's review tool.
In general, the paragraphs seem too short and lack topic sentences. The first sentence of each paragraph should make a point which the rest of the paragraph fleshes out and supports. Here's an old test I learned back in high school: read the article top to bottom, only reading the first sentence of each paragraph. Do these opening sentences outline the important points of the article? Does the order of the material flow logically?
Go through the article and make sure tense is consistent — either all past tense, or all present tense. Check on "the Duke" and "the duke" and other titles and make them consistent.
Some references have page numbers, some don't. Unless there's a really good reason, make your citations painfully easy to check. Put page numbers on all citations. Make sure their formatting is consistent.
This is fine now, right? Mak
Ideally, the first sentence of the lede and the last sentence of the main article should both have a bit of zing. When you review the lede and the Influence section, make sure these two sentences sparkle.
Am I going mad, or is the bother of getting everything past Tony's prose tests just not worth the kudos of the article becoming an FA? I think we're all going to need extensive therapy after this, and that's from someone with shrink-o-phobia. Anyway, I've added a citation for the "biggest stars" bit for the castrati. About the no-less-than four - the thought was as there probably aren't too many parts in Orfeo, so four eunuchs would be a significant proportion of the total, but now I think about it I don't actually no know how many singing parts there are in Orfeo, as I'm not familiar with that particular opera. Could someone who knows please inform me? Cheers, Moreschi 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Having just gone through the experience of getting an article to FA status for the first time, I totally sympathize. I know I'm being a martinet, but I swear I'm doing it to save you grief later. There is little so frustrating, even maddening, than someone blithely objecting to your article on the grounds that the prose isn't "compelling, even brilliant" because you used the word "it." I'm hoping we can polish the prose so well that Tony actually supports the article right away, rather than making us scramble to meet his objections. Thanks for catching my "considerating" typo. It's bad enough I'm tearing things to ribbons and nitpicking galore, but introducing new errors is just adding insult to injury. :-)
Now, to be annoying again: the citation is fine, but per the MOS goes at the end of the sentence unless different parts of the sentence require separate footnotes. I'm now concerned that the new reference (the actual info for the source) doesn't have the same formatting as the "Women in Music" entry, and the references should be formatted the same as much as possible. Either "Firstname Lastname" or "Lastname, Firstname" for both, and an ISBN number and a city of publication for both if available — that kind of thing. Also, the footnote doesn't give a page number. I'm also not sure how authoritative your source is for such a claim, but that's the least of my worries; the claim is credible, so I wouldn't have challenged your source in an FA review.
You just described my exact thought process with regards to Orfeo. How many parts are there total? How many child/soprano/castrato parts were typical for opera in those early days? My best advice is to cite everything, or else be willing to remove anything that isn't common knowledge or self-evident.Peirigill 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! I thought, if anything, I had over cited this article. In short, some of the references I added at least don't have page numbers because they are either from the online version of Grove (which doesn't have page numbers, and the articles I cite are hopefully short enough that I shouldn't have to give a paragraph number or something) or from Mary Springfels' article. I'm working through your comments. I really appreciate your going through the article so carefully, Peirigill. Thanks all, Mak(talk) 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'd overlooked the Grove references; that should be fine.
Moo: An expression born of a certain amount of frustration, but with the realisation that it's all for the best. Also, my white dog decided to chew on a black pen. Mak(talk) 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to a few of Mak's comments above:
the baroque ornaments (passagi, etc.): too crufty? I say no. One thing that this article doesn't quite achieve is conveying how they sounded. "Diminution" isn't really defined. The baroque ornaments are just nonsense words to anyone but a specialist (including to me), but they're an essential part of the ladies' style. During the FA review for Gregorian chant, I was pressed to explain exactly how a quilisma and an oriscus sound; I'm sure you'll be pressed to explain passagi.
Short and somewhat grace-less definitions have now been added. Mak
Along these lines, I would really love to see an excerpt from a score. (If you have an image of the score, you might not even have to invoke fair use; the PD-Art template at Wikicommons says, "The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain worldwide due to the date of death of its author, or due to its date of publication." That was the original rationale for putting up some of the chant notation. Better yet, can you get a sound file? A small excerpt from a commercial recording may fall under fair use. I have software that will turn most anything into an .ogg file.
I too would love these things. If I could find a facsimile I would have no qualms about using it. I'll see what I can do at the library, next time I get there (which might not be for a little while). What I was thinking of, and I don't think would be entirely honest, is if I made an edition using Newcomb's editions, although if credit were given, etc. a fair use rationale could be found. What I'd really like is to find a good facsimile and have both that and an edition I'd make, like I did with Trobairitz. I'll see about finding a short sound excerpt, I'm pretty sure there's a fairly recent recording of Luzzaschi's madrigals which looks reasonable. Mak
"'Newcomb, who's the person who's done all the work in this area and written all the articles on all these people in Grove, and is constantly cited in other works on the period and whose book is held up as a pillar of scholarship, says Foo.' ...seems excessive." Not a problem. Just say "Newcomb says Foo" and cite it. So long as he's in the references, you don't have to give any context for your source there's a good reason for doing so. Per WP:AWW, I'd strongly recommend replacing "some" and "others" with the names of the Grove encyclopedists, without explanation, in the sentence "Some believe Tarquinia Molza sang with the group, but others say she was involved solely as an advisor and instructor." Peirigill 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the "some" and "others" were very carefully laid out in a footnote so as to avoid accusations of weasel-ness, but I suppose it would be less awkward if I put in the names. I'm just afraid that the non-incredibly-specialist reader will respond with bewilderment as to who these two random people are. Thanks, Mak(talk) 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. I'm still thinking how best to respond to your major questions about their overall importance. I'm smarting a little, because all the POV is well sourced, but I think the importance needs to be better shown in the article, as well as the longer term effects, which I strongly believe are more than a simple "flash in the pan", although those effects did not last as identical ensembles. It was more the style of music and singing (virtuosity in the soprano voice), and the importance of women as professional singers in terms of their later use in opera, I think these things were strongly related to the concerto delle donne. Obviously I need to prove it better. Mak(talk) 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Newcomb says foo" and then cite it, I've seen people complain about this construction, because obviously the citation gives who said foo, so saying that Newcomb says foo is redundant. I don't know. I think for a couple things you want me to put "Newcomb says foo" for, they are well established and well supported by later scholars, echoed and cited to Newcomb in their work. Should they still be cited to Newcomb even though they're often repeated? Yes. Should they be expressed in the article as just one man's opinion? I think that would be misleading. I'll continue to think about the weasel word issue. Mak(talk) 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be an imposition if I asked that people strike or otherwise differentiate the things they think have been satisfactorily addressed? I feel like I'm becoming lost in a sea of criticisms :P Mak(talk) 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything pertinent in the auto-review, but does anyone else? I've checked the dates with Bobblewik's script and visually, and they seem fine, and I've checked the cites to make sure they're after the period without a space, so I'm not sure what it's talking about there. There are I think two which are after commas where I thought it was necessary. Thanks very much to Peirigill for striking and continuing to comment, and bon voyage to Moreschi. I'll be where I can do more work again soon. Mak(talk) 03:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Format question It doesn't seem that anyone is looking at this at the moment, but I have a couple questions I would appreciate input on. Firstly, the order of "appendices" at the end. The notes section is so large and completely uninteresting that I think it should go at the very end of the article. The references section is more likely to be at least glanced at by the semi-casual reader and so should go above the notes. The question then is the external link and the navigation box. In my mind, the navigation box is like a centralized and laid-out "See also", and so should be above the reference section. Also, because the article is so name-heavy, and many of the names are not familiar at all, I think the navigation box should help a little during the reading of the article, and so should not be banished to the no-man's land of post-notes. This still leaves the question of the external link, which I'm not sure what to do about. It's the only other centralised online reference to this group, and it's pretty good, although I'm not sure at this point it has a ton more than Wikipedia does. Should it follow the WP:GTL and follow the notes? or should it go somewhere people will actually look? I don't want to split up the notes and references, but I also don't want to place an external link above the references. </blather> Does anyone have opinions? Should I blithely follow the GTL, or should I try to think about actual functionality? Mak(talk) 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be completely Machiavellian, I'd say adhere to WP:GTL until you get your bronze star, and then revise the order later if you still feel it would significantly improve the artice to do so. Peirigill 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secunda pratica question
I'm really surprised by the claim that the concerto delle donne led directly to the secunda pratica. My understanding was that Monteverdi attributed the roots of the secunda pratica to de Rore in particular, and secondarily to folks like Willaert, Marenzio, and Wert. I don't recall him mentioning Luzzaschi or the ladies' consort, even tangentially. I guess I'm wondering whether "leading to the development of the seconda pratica style" is worded too strongly. "Contributing to the development" seems more plausible. Even the phrase "important in the development of the madrigal" gives me pause; sometime around Marenzio, the madrigal hit its technical peak, after which it began to become something new and baroque, and less of the old Renaissance genre. Luzzaschi's music didn't "develop" the madrigal to its finest realization so much as it hastened its demise as the new baroque forms gained popularity. Maybe "the evolution of the madrigal" would be a more neutral and more accurate wording. Peirigill 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're right about the POV, it probably needs to be softened a bit, I was just trying to get the idea out there. I'm having a bit of trouble really understanding the full picture of this period, which is probably why the article continues to have serious structure problems. I've been trying to get a better picture by reading the Grove article on Madrigal, which is quite good, but confuses me in a couple aspects (the pertinent bits are by Newcomb, btw. It's a little annoying for everything to be by one guy, but that's the way it is). In the section on Poetry and the Madrigal it says "The other important new style of poetry at the end of the century has nothing to do with the rise of opera. The Ferrarese school of..."; however, in the section "The 1590s: the rise of the ‘seconda pratica’." it says "These two new types of text brought with them a new style, which caused the Italian madrigal without continuo to have a final period of several decades of splendid bloom.....The most important composers involved at the outset were Marenzio, Luzzaschi and Gesualdo." And the new style referred to is the seconda pratica. and then "These anti-canonical devices might violate norms of spacing, of rhythmic or melodic structure, of part-writing or of harmonic combination. As justification for the new liberties, the composers (notably Luzzaschi in 1596 and Monteverdi in 1605) pointed explicitly to the need to reflect the style and emotional content of the text." So.... it seems like Luzzaschi at least was pretty instrumental in the development of the seconda pratica. I'm a bit confused about how there could be this strong tie to the seconda pratica and absolutely no relationship with opera.
In addition, Newcomb sets out a case that although Marenzio, Wert, and Monteverdi were not at the Ferrarese court, they had strong ties to it. Wert was having an affair with Tarquinia Molza, for heaven's sake! Marenzio and Monteverdi definitely visited the court and heard the ladies, and Monteverdi wrote in imitation of their style. From The Madrigal at Ferrara "In Artusi's dialogue of 1600, Monteverdi's halfhearted defender traces his loose treatment of dissonance to the practices of ornamental singing." (pg. 83) So we have Artusi's opinion- but sometimes critics are more perceptive than proponents of a cause. As well "Wert's seventh book should be considered as much a Ferrarese as a Mantuan product." (pg. 83) and once again from Grove "Luzzaschi was the oldest of the composers involved, and in some respects he was, with Rore and then Wert, the prime mover."
I'm a bit confused by your characterisation of the madrigal hitting it's "technical peak" etc. Remember that there were two completely separate types of madrigals in Italy in the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Newcomb's POV seems to be that the "luxuriant style" of the 1580s led in some ways to the more declamatory and dramatic seconda pratica type style of the 1590s. Marenzio was involved in this move towards the seconda pratica style, so I'm not sure where you think this "peak" is. I'd say the development of the madrigal from a Renaissance form to a Baroque form is a development, if any shift in musical style can be called a development (which is debatable). Now, Monteverdi didn't declare the name of this style until 1605 - does that mean we can't call earlier music "in the style of the seconda pratica?" I think we can, because Monteverdi was just codifying a musical movement which was already well on its way.
Sorry for the long thing, I think you have a good question, and I'm really trying to think it out by writing way too much. I guess I think the movement from a Renaissance style to a Baroque style is really important, and it's also interesting, and I get the strong impression that the concerto delle donne had a significant influence on the music which was being composed during this shift, and the short reason for that is that the most important composers of the "shifting period" wrote music which was dedicated to the ladies, they visited them, they heard them, they imitated them (Caccini isn't mentioned here, but he wrote about half the music of the actual performance of Euridice, and clearly consciously imitated them). Is this becoming clear in the article? Is it beginning to ring true for anyone else?
Mak(talk) 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've moved this to FAC, because I'm going to have to return my main source soon (I got it on ILL so renewals are awkward). Thanks very much for everyone's help, and if you want to make further comments, you can do so at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Concerto delle donne. Again, thank you very much, Mak(talk) 21:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this made into an FA level canidate. What suggestions can be offered? Thanks! - rootology (T) 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use images need rationales, sections with NPOV issues need to be addressed. --lightdarkness (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which first needs to be understood by editors in that it doesn't mean equal time to varying view points. The neutrality isn't so much disputed in some places as the purpose of that policy is misunderstood.--Crossmr 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which sections do you guys think need the most NPOV work? I'd like to sandbox it. rootology (T) 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the neutrality is currently okay. The problem is some individuals who feel that neutrality means anyone with an axe can grind can put their complaint about LJ on that page (I've noticed this trend on several articles). When you remove it citing policy, they slap a NPOV tag on it. I'd have to go through the specifics, but I believe everything that is in there is properly cited and as such its neutral as it can be per WP:NPOV.--Crossmr 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable users and journals are, well... Not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... a lot of those will need to get cut down to people who are likely known outside of Internet/LJ circles. Paul Dini, Billy Corgan, Warren Ellis, Jhonen Vasquez, Caitlyn Kiernen... many of the others are fluff. rootology (T) 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I request the help and advice of all in making this article an FA. Rama's arrow 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a brief read - just a comment on the referencing and citations
Needs more inline citations particularly for the Criticism and legacy and Architect of India's constitution sections.
All of the current inline citations are to one online document and it would be better if the texts in Further Reading where referenced to assertions in the text.
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a glance at the article. My first comment is that the entire list "His Writings and Speeches" is too long. Why are some of them bolded and some not. Wouldn't it be better to move the complete list to a sub-article and just state the really important works here. And why not just add the link to this at the beginning of the section for anyone interested for complete text of the works. The individual links are very distracting. Will review the body of the text later. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The writings and speeches is the most important section. No one can decide which is the most important work. The objective here is not to rank order but to give a reader complete information. I can rank but that would be POV. Note that this is a biographical article and has little meaning if it does not even have a list of writings and speeches properly linked. If its too long, so be it. You can format it into a table of two coloums if you like. It will reduce the length to half. My idea is to later add a synopsis to each of the writings. Yeditor 11:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1926, he became a nominated member of the Bombay Legislative Council, and led a satyagraha — non-violent protest and civil disobedience as pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi — in Madh to fight for the right "
Please get confirmed whether the referred place was "Madh" or "Mahad" (in marathi language 'महाड')[6],[7][8]
Please get confirmed spelling of a Princly states kings surname referred here in this article "gaekwad" (I do not know Gujarathi pronounciation but in Marathi pronounciation may be spelled "Gayakwad" 'गायकवाड')
"who is the chief architect of the Indian constitution. "
What is grammaticaly correct 'is or was' ?
Ambedkar's ancestors had for long been in the employ of the army of the British East India Company,
May be here author wants to reffer family's traditional occupation for certain generations.'employ or employment'
Name of 'Maharaja of Kolhapur' is not mentioned.
Positive aspects of his legacy has room for further coverage.In modern India his legacy has yeilded an acceptance for his social cause from entire political spectrum.
Positive successes of his legacy in upliftment of down troden communities has not been adequetly covered.
There is no mention or links to political aspects after him specialy so about Republican Party.
Primarily article seems ok.I do not have specific experties to confirm all facts and refferences.Sentences are lenghthy could have been devided in shorter ones for readers benefit.
'Vis s Vis Mahatma Gandhi's philosphy of decentralised and stronger local and rural democratic institutions, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar ensured a centralised stronger provincial and union democratic institutions and governments.'This was to ensure more equal treatment from local polity and avoid discreminations.
Article does not cover mainstream political thought that indian untouchability was different from the way west percives 'racism'.Many non-Indian scholors may be interested in understanding this aspect.
Connotation (meaning) of'Untouchable' may be different to readers of Non Indian background is it adequetly explained inthe article it-self.
Being the capital of Idaho, Boise deserves a top-notch article. How can wikipedians make it top-notch? 11kowrom 16:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, to tell you the truth, I think the article is an excellant. I think the article is fairly detailed and covers a nice range of topics. However, I also noticed that due to the large number of differant topics mentioned in this article, some were more detailed than others, perhaps you could balance it out a little more. Also, you should also add a History section to the article and possibly talk a little bit about how the government works if you want.Hope this helps. Socom49 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough references and citations, and the ones that exist are not in the proper format (see Cite.php). That will keep it from FA. PDXblazers 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not one single footnote, full of external jumps that need to be footnotes, some sections are stubby, date linking are not in proper wiki format.Rlevse 12:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No footnotes/references! Sections such as Media need to be expanded (and the main article of the section looks pretty large, so it shouldn't be a problem). Also there's a scary number of redlinks in Culture, and the section titles should only have their first letter capitalised, but I fixed that. CloudNine 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Start by looking at related US-based featured articles such as Ann Arbor. Try and adapt the content from there to Boise. =Nichalp«Talk»= 19:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intending to put Scotland forward as a Featured Article Candidate sometime in the near future. The article has recently been improved and other Wikipedians have expressed an interest in getting this through FA. Any help with this would be welcome. This article was last peer reviewed in 2006 and has changed a lot since then. Lurker (said·done) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall very nicely done and well illustrated. A few comments from one read through: I have never seen footnotes in an infobox - it makes it even longer. Why are they here and not with other notes in the reflist below? It might be helpful to have the map higher in the article - those not familiar with the geography of Scotland might appreciate this. Modern History seems a bit thin after the 17th century and Highland clearances. More on the Industrial Revolution perhaps? In the Administrative subdivisions section, these sentences repeat information from the preceding section on politics and seem unnecessary: For the Scottish Parliament, there are 73 constituencies and eight regions. For the Parliament of the United Kingdom there are 59 constituencies. In the Law section, does the last sentence need to be its own paragraph? In Geology and geomorphology, Grampian Mountains is shown on the map, but not mentioned in the section. The Transport section has three one-sentence paragraphs. Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive article with lots of references; what could it use to be a Featured Article? I also wanted to know if summarizing the scientific studies and merging the conclusion with it (as done in User:Chaser/sandbox) would be the right direction to go? - RoyBoy800 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the external links could be converted to footnotes. WP 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid someone would say that. :"D Will do, thanks. - RoyBoy800 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on this article. Here are some more detailed comments for you:
NCI workshop
This section needs a bit more exposition (i.e. explaination of who the people are and which study is which). I know the lead does that as well, but there's enough different people and things that it can get confusing.
Added Melbye's name for Denmark study and name of presenter.
Pro-life bias, para 1
"These advocates rebut by stating that their ABC information is for the benefit of women's health and to provide informed consent, but they ignore potentially higher and more immediate health risks associated with pregnancy". Second clause seems to break NPOV without a citation; who says they ignore risks? I may have misinterpreted who "they" were, as it's not entirely clear from the passage.
Pretty sure I've seen it several times, can't find it so its gone. The following paragraph provides the important counter point anyway.
Scientific studies, para 1
"ABC studies have been conducted since 1957, [9] but this covers recent ABC research history". What does the "this" refer to? The article? If so, why doesn't the article cover the entire history of studies?
Yes the article. Provided rationale in article, also the entire history is not provided for length considerations.
Try making that explicit and see if you think it reads better, i.e. "...since 1957, but this article covers...". I find "this" generally needs to be followed by a noun indicating what in refer s to. --jwandersTalk 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added article, do you think adding section would clarify, as in "this article section" or even changing "article" to "section"? - RoyBoy800 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific studies, para 2
Para should be made clearer and punctionation improved (e.g. "and a (95%...". Quote results briefly then focus on their meaning; details of confidence intervals can be left in that article.
Tweaked, hopefully enough. Disagree on confidence interval (CI), I've read the lead there and still don't understand what I've just read. A clear understanding is essential for a reader interpret the numerous numbers within the ABC article. Going to the CI article to understand CI is a significant interuption in reading flow of the ABC article.
Yes, that's much better now. I'll have to add the CI article to my to do list! --jwandersTalk 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confounding factors and hormones
The list in the middle of this section seems out of place.
Turned into a paragraph.
Melbye, para 3
Reference to oral contraceptives as "the pill" is unprofessional. Also the last sentence in this para appears to be editorialising; cite someone who brought up that point in the debate, if you can.
Hadn't considered that, changed. Also just recently added a link that discusses the issue of birth cohort adjustments for Melbye. - RoyBoy800 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howe, para 2
Last sentence would read better as, "Eventually the Britain-based International Journal of Epidemiology published it in 1989."
Changed.
Response bias, para 1
"CJD" alluded to without prior description; grammar issue in third sentence;
Removed. Underreporting not overreporting is what is at issue for ABC.
Other comments
Very good lead.
Took a little negotiation and head scratching. I would prefer it be three paragraphs for aesthetics. (merge 1st and 2nd paragraphs) What do you think?
I'm torn. I like the directness of the 1st para, but then the 2nd is too short. I've tried merging them; what do you think? --jwandersTalk 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. - RoyBoy800 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, footnotes-style would be nice; but as it's easier, coverting the lead footnotes to html style would suffice.
I'll do it over the next couple days.
Is "pro-lifer" an accepted term? Smacks of being unprofessional to me.
Changed.
I find I don't like in-text references (e.g. "The ongoing and incremental legal challenges to abortion by pro-life groups is documented in Frontline's The Last Abortion Clinic." or "See Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill by Chris Kahlenborn, MD (ISBN 0966977734) for an extended argument from the pro-life perspective."). I know of no guideline or policy against them though, so that might just be me ;-)
Changed the whole section to refs, but book mention is unchanged for now.
I'm not sure the Daling quote, though powerful, furthers the article.
I'd disagree, precisely because it is powerful. It serves as an authoritative reminder people on both sides of the political divide have played politics with this issue. That is an essential meme I want readers to take from the article.
Good job walking the NPOV line, especially considering the subject matter; I kept thinking the article was starting to lean one way or the other, but then something would always bring it back again.
Many thanks. Truly wonderful to hear that. I would humbly request you say exactly that on User:SOPHIA, User:Pro-Lick and User:Alienus talk pages. As they have helped fine tweak the weight of the article. Although as of now, it would appear they have all left Wikipedia, perhaps such a comment would encourage them to constructively rejoin the project.
I haven't examined any of the sources, which a FAC review would entail.
Heh, there are a bunch of 'em.
There are a lot of short paragraphs (i.e. <4 sentences). These will likely be a issue if you go to FAC.
I'd have to plead guilty on that... my 800x600 screen biases towards shorter paragraphs.
Your comments have been of great help. Could I have your opinion on suggestions implemented in User:Kchase02/sandbox. - RoyBoy800 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do an indepth comparison of the two versions, but at this point I'm not sure it added benefit of the Kchase version warrants the inventing of appendices on WP. I would say that the Scientific studies section there could be worked into the current article in order to provide a gentler introduction to the hardcore scientific debate that follows. --jwandersTalk
That could indeed work. Oh, and no need for indepth comparison, its essentially a pre-peer reviewed version with the scientific section summarized and made into an appendix. The thinking was the article flows nicely then gets interupted by a long hardcore science section. Making it an appendix could improve the flow. I'm not sold on the idea, so trying to get a consensus on the way to go. Now we have a third option! Are you always this good? :"D RoyBoy800 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the article, particularly the "Scientific studies" section, which needs little if no work. My advice is minor:
The style of referencing should be standardized. Some references are given in a formal, APA style, while others are cited in the manner of web links.
The article would be serviced by thorough Wikification. Many concepts remain unlinked.
The article relies too heavily upon the "ABC" acronym. It should be substituted in some places for "abortion-breast cancer" to make the article seem more like an encyclopaedic in tone.
Done refs, may need some tweaking as I've changed the reference style from original examples. I'll have a look at Wikification and ABC issue tomorrow. Thanks. - RoyBoy800 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind the acronym issue. The book I'm currently reading continuously refers to government agencies by this form of shorthand, so, really, I'm leaning toward thinking it's just my own preference. -Severa (!!!) 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While not essential to the article, as it is very informative as it is, images would definitely help toward FA:
Comparative charts or graphs to represent data from various studies.
A diagram to illustrate the process of cellular differentiation in the breast during early pregnancy. Perhaps with special emphasis on the difference between uninterrupted growth during full-term pregnancy and interruption via abortion.
This article introduces the subject of telecommunication from a technical perspective, it is a relatively long article (40 kB) and has been identified as one of the core topics for Wikipedia. It has been recently rewritten over the course of several months. I welcome any suggestions on how to improve the article. I hope to at least make it a good article. Cedars 02:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good, the lead could use work since the majority of the second paragraph is a self reference, where it should be a summary of the article. While the rest of the article is pretty well balanced, there is a skew towards new technology - I think it could use some sort of analysis on access to telecommuniccations and how that varies across the world.--Peta 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peta! I removed the self references and added some discussion about differing levels of access to telecommunication worldwide. Cedars 07:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - let's make this article an FA. Request all help and advice. Rama's arrow 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article switches between refering to him as Ziaur and Zia. If Zia is a shorthand way of saying the name used for convenience, it seems innappropriate for an encyclapedia article. If it is a common cultural practice to shorten names that way, it should be explained.
The entire article needs more citations, but the Criticism and Legacy section in particular lacks any references and almost the entire section is speculative information that needs to be sourced.
A greater variety of refernced sources than one online article should be used. Some sources that may be helpful:
an Dec. 18, 2005 from The Statesman, a paper? published in Calcutta and New Dehli
Nov. 13, 2005 article in Business Recorder out of Karachi, Pakistan
Nov. 8, 2005 article in Kuwait Times
Mar. 21, 1991 article in Chicago Tribune
New York Times articles from Dec 8, 1976, May 28, 1977, Jun 4, 1978, Jun 7, 1978, Feb 19, 1979, Nov 11, 1979, Jul 28, 1980, Aug 29, 1980, May 30, 1981, May 31, 1981, and Sep 23, 1981.
Some copyediting would be helpful as well, I did a small amount myself.
I hope these are helpful for you. --Dekkanar 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opark 77 and East718 have done an enormous amount of work expanding, organizing, and referencing this article; I have helped mainly by tightening the prose and re-organizing the sections. I especially want people who are not familiar with The Wire to offer their opinions on whether they find the article informative on its subject, but of course we also welcome comments from those who've seen the show and think the information could be better presented. Article size is 58k largely due to its markup; the actual text size (not counting references) is about 42k. Also, we have already done the automated peer review and acted on it. Andrew Levine 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove links to dictionary terms such as "police". Catholic Church is a trivial link, too.
Needs copy-editing throughout to make the prose neater and, in some places, correct; e.g., "The cast is large and consists"—"The large cast consists". " it has failed to draw an audience commensurate with its press"—"the size of its audience has not matched critical enthusiasm". "thematically very different, forebears"—Remove comma. "twelve or thirteen full-hour episodes in length"—"12 or 13 ... [remove last two words, too]"
"Discussing his aims for the show, Simon is realistic about its lack of potential to change the situations it portrays, but says that he hopes it can change the opinions of some of its viewers." Will this date (present tense)?
I wonder whether the stubby sections under "Themes" could be merged, by removing the subtitles. Might make it flow better? Unsure.
Principal cast: VERY blue. Can you delink some things, like the ones that all go to "list of characters ..."?
Em dashes without spaces better than hyphens for punctuation.
Season numbers—use Arabic numerals, don't spell out.
Yeah, it's got potential, but needs polishing throughout, particularly the prose. You're up against a lot of TV articles that aren't featured. Look at "Six Feet Under" and "24".
Thank you for the feedback. I've struck through some of the suggestions made that I have acted upon, I hope that's Ok. I'm familiar with the Six Feet Under article and have now read the 24 (TV series) one. I see that both are more list heavy than The Wire article currently is and cover the same broad sections, was there anything in particular you wanted us to emulate/learn from in suggesting these articles?
The section about Simon's aims would not date well. I will look at rewording it. I suggested merging the Themes subsections on the discussion page after the automated peer review suggested that the TOC was too large, myself and Andrew Levine thought it best to wait and see if anyone else thought so. I'm interested to see if others point this out as well.
The cast section is quite blue, but I think it needs to be as the characters and actors are an integral part of the show and anyone interested may want to read more about them. Perhaps the actors could be de-linked because the character pages all link to them anyway (or vice versa). Does anyone else have any thoughts about this?
The last two formatting issues are valuable suggestions that I hope to address when I'm more motivated for a slightly tedious job!
In terms of the cast sections links again. I notice now that the starring cast are all linked in the infobox so these links are repeated in the cast section, does anyone think this is reason enough to take the links out?--Opark 77 01:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I've removed all "List of characters..." links in the principal cast section, and also changed all hyphens to emdashes.
Both 24 and SFU are very list-heavy, and we tacitly agreed to go with prose over lists. Is this the direction you wanted to take the article?
I also though about replacing the lead's last sentence with this: "However, its success at drawing an audience has been significantly less than its critical success." Is that a little less awkward to you? east.718 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me that would be considerably more awkward, especially with the repetition of "success." I don't see what the problem is with "commensurate with..." May this be a difference between American and Australian English? Andrew Levine 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the cast section has too many links, I would recommend taking out the major cast members already in infobox) rather than the more valuable links to the individual characters (which contain a lot more information than can be presented in the main page). Andrew Levine 07:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the links in the cast section that were duplicated in the infobox.--Opark 77 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for merging the small, one-paragraph subsections in "Themes", I tried doing that a week ago, but never submitted the results as an edit, because the section headers served a purpose that would otherwise be taken up by an additional lead-in sentence in each paragraph. There are many FAs that have similar one-paragraph subsections. Andrew Levine 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These results are similar (there are no new suggestions) to those discussed for the earlier automated peer review.--Opark 77 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article really looks fantastic, Opark77, East718 and whomever else have really outdone themselves. A nice thing about the article is that everything looks neat and organized and the large list of references is a plus. Other than some minor grammar wording which should be fixed, I think it is a very impressive article. I would also advise taking a look at The West Wing (TV series) article which happens to be a "featured article" which could provide some insights or ideas for what you would like to accomplish in the future for this article. Sfufan2005 01:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. In building up this article we looked at all the featured articles for TV series, particularly The West Wing as it is the only drama with an ensemble cast on FA. We ended up using elements from most of the TV FAs in the article as suited for The Wire. What grammatical fixes should be made? Andrew Levine 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendations for grammar are the same that Tony had recommended which have since been fixed. Otherwise, good work! Sfufan2005 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to recieve reviews suchs as out of 10 or out of 5, A, B, C, etc. Judge on the grammar and NPOV in my article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supershow (talk • contribs) 16:07, July 29, 2006
Hello, Supershow. You don't seem to have corrected the problems I pointed out in response to your request for feedback. Could you please fix them? Once you fix the problems, I believe the article is close to Good Article standards. Once the peer review is completed, you can nominate it for Good Article. All the best! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Types of Basketballs" section in particular features far too many sections, making it jarring to read. violet/riga(t) 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To all willing editors, I am requesting a Peer Review for the article Angelina Jolie. Any suggestions and ideas will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Some points of intresest
Extensive research has been done in her humanitation work
So many sub-sections in the article (children, years) seem a bit strange to me, any ideas on that.
The pictures all seem to fit fair use. Myrockstar 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have extended some of the sections in the last months and I would say most of the text is pretty accurate and well cited considering how much news stories are out there about her. I think I can say that there is no major mistake in the article at the moment. I don't consider the sub-sections as to excessive because of the general length of the article. The article still needs a longer lead section of course and it might be a good idea to create a seperate article "Angelina Jolie's Humanitarian Work" like it has be done with many sections for the very long Madonna article. This would allow to accumulate all information about her humanitarian work in a different page, but at the same time shorten the section in this article and put it in a more comprehensive form since it is rather listy. -- EnemyOfTheState 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Table of contents is far too long, sections need to go. The lead is too short, see WP:LEAD. The tatoos and trivia sections are unencyclopedic and the content should be worked into the text or removed. The information on her children also goes beyond what is necessary for an encyclopedia entry, it draws too heavily on tabloid accounts all that is really necessary is to say she has three kid and two were adopted. Quotes should not be italicised, per the WP:MoS. Fair use images sould have propper fair use rationales--Peta 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the table is very long. I think sections should be merged. I also think the information on her huminatarian work is a lot for the article, but I don't think it should have it's own article. Is so much detailed information really needed? The info on her acting career is also somewhat short in my opinion, at least compared to her hum. work. I think some things in the trivia aren't really needed, and other things could easily be worked into the bio section. As for her tattoos, well I think they are an important part of Angelina, but I don't see how they could be merged into something, perhaps not having the section in bullets might help. Myrockstar 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the idea to just delete "Tattoos" and "Trivia"; take a look at the discussion page or the page's history, it's obivous these are rather popular sections for many readers. If anything I would suggest to create a sub-article that could include the lists of both, her tattoos and the general trivia, comparable to articles like this: Madonna trivia. --Sloan21 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article, to be frank, is a mess. It has tons of fan cruft, has entire sections which don't belong, and does not get the right information across, in the appropriate length. The article features MANY editors, as this is one of Disney Channel's most popular shows. I'd like the chance to work with the editors to improve the quality, and get things back on track. Suggestions as to which sections should stay, which should go, which should be shortened/expanded would be greatly appreciated. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few suggestions:
All pictures should have a rationale of fair use written for them.
The opening is broken down into too many one sentence paragraphs. These should be merged together.
The trivia section should be combined with the rest of the article.
Statments like the sitcom is the highest rated show on the Disney Channel and ...the show was rated #336 on the Nielsen TV Ratings Best Shows of 2005 should be sourced.
Hi - I request the help and participation of all in making this article an FA. Rama's arrow 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the article a copyedit - it already was a well-written article with nice layout, so there wasn't really much to do. One sentence, "While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." was confusing in a way that I could not rectify. There is no subject and I couldn't figure out what should be the subject. There are red links that either should have pages or should be explained, such as his positions. In any event, I assume that the references will be added shortly because, well, there aren't any. And that ain't cool as far as FAC goes, as you are well aware! But otherwise, wonderful job! InvictaHOG 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes actually I've still got a lot of info to add to the article. Your comment is right - I was writing in context of the partition of India, which happened 50 years after Khan's death and thus is not properly explained or directly relevant to this article. Thanks for your comments, but do check back in the coming weekend. Rama's arrow 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First para in lead states "His work gave rise to a new generation of Muslim intellectuals, professionals, politicians.." and the third paragraph again states "His political leadership would give direction to a rising class of Muslim intellectuals and politicians..". That is almost a repetition.
Why is Birth capitalised and death is not. Death anniversary is a red link. There is no need to link it.
Early life - Highly connected seems to be wrong. Maybe well connected could be used. "Associated" could also be used. "Connected" doesn't sound nice.
Akbar Shah I is a red linnk. It is not clear who he was.
"their life" is wrong grammar - "their lives"
"Khan learnt to read the Qur'an under a female tutor" - Is female important?
First printing press in Urdu language? Where? Surely not the first in the whole world.
Where did Khan pursue medicine? If it was a well known college, then it could be linked or at least mentioned.
"In 1840, he was promoted to the title of munshi. The family's misfortunes intensified with the death of his brother in 1845, leaving Khan as the main bread-winner." There is no link between the sentences. The promotion isn't a family misfortune. It could read - "The family's fortunes received another setback with the death of..."
Thoughout the article there is a lot of usage of "he would be" - For example - "1867. Two years later, Khan travelled to England, where he would be awarded the Order of the Star of India" - Why not just use the simple past tense - "where he was awarded the Order". That is just my personal preference. I have notices the usage of "would do this" in all articles expanded by you. It isn't much of a big deal.
Also as usual use Indian English spellings.
That's all I had time for just now. I have not read the article from Political career onwards. Will do that later today. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism and legacy - "He is defended by some modern historians and Aligarh scholars as mainly anxious to secure fair representation and political rights for Muslims, otherwise firmly believing in a united India for all its different peoples. While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." - Shouldn't the two sentences be merged. If not then the second sentence seems to be wrong. It starts with While.. and should lead to something (While A, B - where B should be something opposite of A).
Death and legacy - Criticism and legacy - Legacy in two sections. Maybe the two sections could be merged.
A small point you could add is his impact on today's world if any.
Besides all the above minor points the article is great. The only major point is the obvious lack of references (which I am sure you already have). Tell me if you need any more help with the article. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article concerning a minor league ballpark in Texas recently became a good article. I have found little regarding what a stadium article should be in order to become featured, and I was hoping that this peer review could help me to gain more perspective on the article (as all peer reviews do). I anxiously await any input and thank you in advance for your aid. — Scm83xhook 'em 22:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For an article with as many mentions of architectural awards it is surprising how little description is given to the structure's architecture. The article lists a handful of features (the existence of luxury suites, location of the bull pens, and location of a pool) but fails to include a description of the overall style or theme of the ballpark (does the ballpark have a retro theme, futuristic styling, ...?). There also needs to be a mention of what other types of events are held besides baseball games. --Allen3talk 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on getting a picture of the stadium, so that will make the architectural description easier. There are several architecture descriptions online that can be well used ("park within a park", etc.). In close proximity to the stadium is Pizza Hut Park, which is where all of the concert type events seem to go on in Frisco because it has a built in concert stage. Like most baseball seasons, it is used almost every day during the season, and the offseason is winter, so an outdoor venue is less usable. It seems as though it is used for the Texas Amateur Athletic Federation's Winter Games, patterned after the Olympics for amateur athletes. I'll get to adding these things, including taking the picture. — Scm83xhook 'em 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been expanding a stadium article recently, I'd be interested to see how this one develops. Some points:
There's a couple of bits which are confusing to non-American or non-baseball following readers. What is a Class AA baseball team? Is there an article which can be linked to the term? "ranking it fourth overall in all minor league attendance for the year" - Does this mean US minor league baseball teams, all US sports or something else?
I've linked Class AA to minor league baseball in the lead so that the concept is less confusing to international readers. I also disambiguated the statement about overall attendance by clarifying "fourth overall in all minor league baseball attendance". — Scm83xhook 'em 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough copyedit would be beneficial. For example, the ballpark did not lose the first event in April 2003, the team playing in it did. There are quite a few redundant words. If all uses of "additionally" were removed from the article, the meaning would not change.
Surely. The article was written piecemeal over a few days, so I'm sure a copyedit couldn't hurt. I'll take care of it. — Scm83xhook 'em 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an area known for being where the most vociferous fans congregate? What type of seating is used - is it covered or open-air?
I have now uploaded an image of the park's facade and inside. From the image, you can see that seating is open-air. All of this will be discussed in the architectural design section I will add soon. There is no particularly vociferous section, by the way. — Scm83xhook 'em 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the attendance for a typical game? Oldelpaso 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Games seem to sell out quite frequently, but I will obtain exact figures. Thank you for all of your comments, and let me know if I can help out any with the stadium article that you are working on. — Scm83xhook 'em 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article update: I have added the new architectural design section and requested a copyedit from a very good grammarian friend. — Scm83xhook 'em 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article received a peer review back in February 2005 (Wikipedia:Peer review/Fourth International/archive1). Since then, several contributors including myself have made extensive changes and additions to the article. I believe that all the suggestions received back then have been addressed, and the article is now considerably more comprehensive. I think it may now be close to WP:FA status, and I'm keen to pass it through peer review for comments. Warofdreamstalk 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well-presented considering it is a subtopic of Trotskyism and it must be hard not to recover aspects covered in other Trotskyism articles. It provides enough background for a novice without being too simple. Good referencing and neutral point-of-view writing. Certainly a lot closer to FA status than last time. Some comments:
Use of capitalisations (such as SWP,IEC,RCP and FI). I suggest you add the abbreviation in brackets after the full name before using it alone. For the SWP in particular it was used first as US SWP and I had to scroll up two sections to find out what it referred to. There are also sections later in the article where the abbreviations become somewhat overwhelming. Perhaps the occasional substitution with the full name (or when the reference is unmistakable 'the commitee' or 'the party') would make it more readable.
Too many redlinks
Still too little explanation about the previous Internationals (second doesn't appear, first mentioned in passing). I was looking for background like this at the beginning of the article.
Some style inconsistencies: U.S. vs US, first International v Fourth International,international v International.
The grouping of The Founding Congress and WWII seems a little strange, these could be split to make it flow better.
Alternative viewpoints suggests that the article is written from a certain point-of-view. I'd suggest changing it to External links or Further reading
Hope this helps. Yomangani 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now completely worked through the capitalisations; there are now considerably fewer (I've expanded some and removed some unnecessary ones). All remaining capitalisations are now explained the *first* time they are used, and again if they not used for several sections.
Now I've worked through the capitalisations, there are even more red links - I noticed a couple of groups mentioned which were never linked! Most of these shouldn't be too difficult to write articles on, so I'll work through them.
I've fixed the link for the Socialist International to point to the Second International. The difficulty is that interaction between it (strictly, its successor, the Socialist International) and the Fourth International was limited, and the story of the link is historic, in particular lying in the WWI splits from it which mostly ended up in the Comintern. Perhaps a brief mention in the intro and a section on communist concepts of an International would clarify this?
I've standardised to "U.S." in each case, and capitalised "International" when it refers to a specific International. I don't think it would be appropriate to capitalise "first International"; the "Fourth International" termed itself as such; for obvious reasons, the International Workingmen's Association did not call itself the "First International"; rather, the idea of it being the first of a series of Internationals is a later concept.
I've split the Founding Congress and WWII sections. You're right, this does seem to make it flow better.
Good point on "Alternative viewpoints"; I've changed it to "Further reading".
Thanks for taking the time to look through the article and for your useful comments. Warofdreamstalk 01:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no comments for two days, then I get an edit conflict. :) It really has improved. I've been trying to allocate time for a thorough review without luck yet, but here's what I see so far: 1) Some of the paragraphs are too short and have some choppy prose, adding up to poor flow in places. There's probably about 10 short paragraphs in that situation, I didn't check the prose in others. 2) The lead is much better but still needs more context. It still uses terms that you already need to know the material to know what they are. GPU, Third International, Comintern. It also doesn't say if they had any success or why they are the most important Trotkyist organization. It doesn't really tell us what their ideals were or what they tried to do, except a little through inference on what you tell us they were unsuccessful in. 3) The article's largely chronological structure makes it difficult to see at a glance the organization's impact, legacy, importance or lack thereof, etc. I would recommend shrinking down the chrono stuff to a reasonably small section to give a contextual overview, then use other broad sections to cover the various most important aspect of the organization. Are their views one and the same with Trotskyism, and would other groups agree with that? The Trotskyism section seems to be to only one giving overview of their views/goals. Hope that's a start - TaxmanTalk 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that's useful. I'll think about your third suggestion and reply later, while getting to work on the others. Warofdreamstalk 01:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure it's the best way, but it seems better. It is unfortunately a lot of work, but if it results in a great article it will be worth it. - TaxmanTalk 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that (although I'd have to see both versions to make up my mind, that's how close it is). I like the chronological approach, although I agree with Taxman that it makes it difficult to see the impacts of the organization: it might be better to dedicate a section to this at the beginning and then maintain the chronological layout. Yomangani 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably fine too, but if you add something, you'd still probably need to summarize the chronology a bit in order to not make the article too large. - TaxmanTalk 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about these suggestions, I prefer this idea - it avoids rewriting large sections of the article which are already in pretty decent shape, while clarifying the FI's impacts. Warofdreamstalk 11:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've been through and addressed everything but the redundancies. Warofdreamstalk 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An update for various suggestions: almost all the red links are gone, and there is now a section on political internationals and how they relate to the Fourth International. The lead has also been simplified, and explains or avoids less obvious concepts (other than Trotskyism and political internationals, which are detailed in their own sections, immediately following the lead).
Still to do: check for redundancies and short paragraphs, and write a section on the impact of the organisation. Warofdreamstalk 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better to me: the section on internationals and the brief section on Trotsky are just what it needed for the novice reader. Like you say, the impact section still needs writing but apart from it looks good. Yomanganitalk 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on the section on the FI's impact; there is little agreement on it, so I've considered the views of various tendencies and compared it with the tasks it set itself. Warofdreamstalk 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've now checked for redundancies and short paragraphs and fixed them as best I can. Warofdreamstalk 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. It's as ready for FAC as I can think of after one thing. The lead still throws the reader in too abruptly. What's Trotskyism? Give us one or two more sentences in the lead adding that bit of context. Tell us earlier (in the first sentence) the fourth international is a socialist political organization working for x. The new sections later in the article cover this extremely well and though I still think the impact section could more clearly come out and tell us whether historians in general regard the organization as being widely influential or not, the article is clearly currently among Wikipedia's best. - TaxmanTalk 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Is the new intro clearer? Warofdreamstalk 02:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "has been" to "is" in the lead as it seemed to be an artifact from the rewrite. Looks good to me though, and I agree with Taxman: you should now put it forward to FAC. Yomanganitalk 10:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like this to be a Featured Article, and I think that it's extremely close. I'd like the red links to be fixed and the shortest sections expanded. C. M. Harris 12:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article of this length needs more than 9 inline citations. There are large swaths of the usage and biology sections that are totally unreferenced.
The lead doesn't really summarize the article and needs to be expanded. In particular, dry ice is mentioned without reference to its use, greenhouse gases get only a brief mention, and there's nothing specific about the gas being a poisonous byproduct of human (animal) respiration, which is what I think a layperson knows most about it. Carbon fixation should be mentioned and linked, and CO2's role as a product of complete combustion should probably be mentioned somewhere.
The second person ("You may notice this sensation..." etc) is unencyclopedic in tone.
The usage and biology sections both read like random collections of facts rather than coherent prose. The uses section may be a tad more difficult to fix since the uses are so diverse, but rewriting the biology section for continuity shouldn't be difficult; there's an abundance of reference material available. In general, it looks like the atmospheric section has received vastly more effort than these two sections.
The entire "Solid CO2" section should be a subsection of "uses", and while dry ice bombs are a use for the substance, I wouldn't classify that use as industrial. The amorphous glass material belongs somewhere as a physical property of CO2, not a use (I don't think this has any industrial applications).
In addition to being listy, the biology section is awkwardly written. "...dangerous to the life and health of humans, plants and other animals"?? What?
The image illustrating the vibrational modes of CO2 is interesting and relevant, but misplaced. Move it, along with a text discussion of vibrational modes, to another section (possibly "properties", after the discussion of the absence of dipole - which itself should get a mention that there can be an induced dipole effect) and let that provide the necessary context for the statement about vibrational modes in the atmosphere section.
Suggest comparing to the Acetic acid article, which is FA. You can't go too far wrong by mimicking the layout, where applicable.
Typo: "conducive"
The line "The data can be accessed at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html" should be converted into an inline citation. Likewise anywhere else in the text where there is an embedded external link, I'd prefer to see {{cite web}} be used instead as an inline citation. That provides more information about where the reader is heading.
Somewhere in the article you might mention that CO2 is the primary component of the atmospheres of both Venus and Mars. It has been discovered in the interstellar medium[9] and is "an abundant component of cold interstellar grains".[10]
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some other brief comments and ideas...
The article itself does not seem to be very cohesive. There are portions of the article where unrelated ideas are put together one sentence after another with little continuity - see the "uses" section as an example.
The use of carbon dioxide as a solvent does not seem to be described adequately - there is an example of how it is used, but not why it acts as a good solvent for certain chemicals. I would expect to see something about supercritical fluids - a brief mentioning would do. Also, something about the predominant solvent interactions would be good.
There should be something about the molecular point group that carbon dioxide belongs to, and its implications for IR and Raman spectroscopy. The reason is that CO2 is a rather "simple" system where this can be clearly illustrated - but perhaps this might be better put in the spectroscopy articles.
Other things as well, but I think I will leave it at this for now. I hope this helps! --HappyCamper 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English is not my first language, so I will appreciate any english and grammar correction. I need some feedback also though, for the whole article. Thank you! -- Imoeng 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the lead section is way too short (I know - I made it shorter still, but it felt it flowed better with my rewritten lead section) - I think 2 paragraphs would be a good length - try a short introduction about how many variations there were. Is the guitar quite exclusive or not? Is it popular? There are also several grammar errors dotted throughout the article (try not to use 'reach' so much - I can't think of a better word to replace at this moment though) - but I can fix them :) About the picture half-way down the article, what relevance does it have? I can't see what it is straight away, so it may be worth captioning. Apart that, it's a good article and well-referenced. Keep it up! CloudNine 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second version - So I've added more information in the introduction and fixed some grammars, although I am sure its quite far from perfect. Could anyone give me more feedback? Pleasee.. Thank you! :) Imoeng 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the comment at the beginning shouldn't really be there - I'm not sure it's suited to a encylopedia article :(. Try to wikify the 'Models and Variations' section a little, a few more pictures would be nice (if you can get them). Are the variations radically different? If so, you might want to start up a new article for each of them (like Fender Jaguar - as I'm not a fan of lists personally on Wikipedia.
Also, a 'Notable Users' section might be helpful - there's got to be more people using it than Steve Vai! In the Earlier Guitars section, I think the quote from Steve Vai was a little too long - you may want to only include the part where with the new guitar. There's still a few errors in spelling and grammar, but I can fix those sometime. CloudNine 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left this comment on Imoeng's page as well. I think this article is badly pushing it when it comes to fair use images. There are way too many on there, and they don't strike me as images we couldn't, with some effort, make free alternatives for. Mangojuicetalk 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should I do with the images? Please let me know as I really want this article to be one of the good articles. Cheers, Imoeng 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs some improvement; I wish to do so myself, but don't know what to include. Help
is appreciated. --TheM62Manchester 09:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the author of the German version of the article which was the basis for the English one. So if u find any mistakes, please drop me a message. It would be helpful if u could specify a little more, where the problem with this article is. -- Dr. Shaggeman 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has just finished being the NZ collaboration. The article needs a general peer review. Also, if it could be looked at for POV-pushing in particular due to the controversial nature that Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements can be in New Zealand. Brian | (Talk) 07:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
completely lacks references. Needs wikilinks for iwi names. Doesn't discuss the effect the Treaty claims process has had on wider race relations in New Zealand (e.g. prior to the process, the Māori seats were seen as being a form of proportional representation in a first past the post system. But today they are talked about as being Treaty rights). --222.154.123.120 10:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working in this article for the last few days all this all-time sports flop. I really want to get this to WP:FAC and make this an WP:FA. Any advice. Thanks Jarandawat's sup 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Some have called his choice of courses ironic, given his extremely poor relations with the media as an NFL player." Needs a specific source. Christopher Parham(talk) 05:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it has obvious unsourced PoV. Thanks Jarandawat's sup 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some very minor tidying but I can't see much wrong with it (I must be getting tired). Yomangani 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks pretty good. The lead could be a better summary - its misssing some important facts like how long he actaully played or his injuries which seem to have contributed to his failure, it should follow a more chronological line with what he is doing now last; then there is this critics was largely due to his immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic which is totally weasley and the only thing in the lead that really needs to be backed up by a cite. Quotes shouldn't be in italics per the MoS. The article also needs a good copyedit.--Peta 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many changes have been done to this article recently to get it to GA or FA article status, but any and all suggestions pertaining to this goal are wanted. General suggestions, comments, and pointers to make this a GA or FA are appreciated, thanks. Okiefromokla 02:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty good. I notice that there are still several unsourced paragraphs and statements on the page which would count against it at FAC. Comprehensive sourcing would be something that would need to be addressed. Here's my citation criteria for featured articles.--Zleitzen(talk) 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I added the following items to the to do list. I suppose I should have posted them here for comment first. Sorry.
If decide to show Line of Proclamation in 3-1-1781 map, consider changes made to it by Treaty of Fort Stanwix and Treaty of Lochaber.
Agreed, this should be discussed and researched before any changes made, it can be a complex subject. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
maps for 8-16-1812 and 9-29-1813 say "administered by West Florida"; should be "by U.S."
Should it? West Florida appears to have maybe been in charge during that short time, if it was administered by the U.S. then there would have been no need for military action. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of West Florida ceased on 12/10/1810, so that entity was not in charge of anything after that. And any areas to its east that remained in the control of the Spanish Province of West Florida would be said to be administered by Spain.
The U.S. military occupied several parts of West Florida at different times beginning in 1810. An occupying force, in my opinion, administers the area it occupies.
Spain never relinquished any claim to any part of West Florida until the 1819 treaty ratification in 1821.
Status as of 8-16-1812: Spain claimed and the U.S. administered Areas II and III, while the U.S. claimed and Spain administered Area IV.
Status as of 9-29-1813: Spain claimed and the U.S. administered all of Areas II, III and IV.
Area II was the land of the Republic of West Florida, which was occupied and annexed by the U.S. on December 10, 1810. From then on, Area II was administered by the U.S. After Spain was militarily defeated by the rebels (admittedly, a very short battle) in September 1810, Spain still considered Area II as part of its Province of West Florida continuously until 1821. So while Spain claimed Area II, the U.S. occupied it and administered it.
Areas III and IV, the lands between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers, were also part of the Spanish Province of West Florida and were also claimed by the U.S. from 1803 on. Area III was occupied by the U.S. military in 1811 and thus annexed de facto. In 1811 and again in 1812 the Americans proclaimed jurisdiction over Area IV while Spain still held it; however, the U.S. did not occupy and annex it de facto until April 1813.
So at the date of admission of the state of Louisiana on April 30, 1812, in the unorganized territory (Areas II, III and IV), the U.S. controlled Areas II and III but not Area IV.
Likewise, two weeks later, when West Florida between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers was assigned to Mississippi Territory, Area IV (but not Area III) remained under the control of Spanish Florida. In other words, only part of the U.S.-claimed portion of West Florida east of the Pearl River remained under the control of Spanish Florida.
From April 1813 and later, none of U.S.-occupied West Florida west of the Perdido was administered by Spain, although Spain certainly claimed it.
Thanks; I don't know how I did it but I seem to have completely missed that, yeah, these frames are long after the Republic of West Florida ceased to be. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
change May 1, 1915 map to show Punta Paitilla in Panama
But when did Punta Paitilla become part of Canal Zone? --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The peninsula that contains Punta Paitilla (except for a tiny piece of the tip of the point) was part of Canal Zone from inception until May 1, 1915, when Panama City was de-enclaved. The whole peninsula then became part of Panama. In the months after July 12, 1918, the U.S. took back all of the peninsula again.
I see... But, when should I show it as part of Canal Zone? "in the months after..." is not the best description. ... You know, stuff like this really makes me lean toward taking out Canal Zone, except the broad strokes, and leaving the specifics to another article, like with the bancos. It may require more detail than this article is designed to give. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I advise to show it on 7-12-1918, because on that day the U.S. expropriated 2.6 of the 50 hectares of Punta Paitilla; that area was quickly increased to the full 50 hectares after the U.S. surveyed it in 1918 (unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine the exact date of that next 1918 letter to the Government of Panama). This particular entry is already in the table with no map and could stay the way it is, in my opinion. In fact, as the table stands right now, there are entries for all the changes involving the Canal Zone. The only necessary modification for Punta Paitilla is on the map for 5-1-1915. I do not think it's necessarily required to introduce new additional maps for Canal Zone. The only new map I would highly recommend is for the case immediately below. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added to to-do. --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The area of 3168 acres annexed west of Rio Chagres mouth should appear as CZ territory in the 4 maps of the Canal Zone following August 21, 1918.
What would it look like? Do you have an image? Is this the culmination of the several 'too small to map' entries, or are those placeholders until a map can be made? (And, to be honest, this could probably warrant a separate "Territorial evolution of the Panama Canal Zone", with all of the changes and annotated details that are much too fine for this map) --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image. The area is the northwestern part of the Zone extending to Piña. It is one "big enough to map" area added to the Zone on August 21, 1918, combined with a "too-small" triangle area added on December 8, 1915.
1848-7-4 Should the borders of Mexico's ceded departments of Nuevo Mexico and Texas be shown from Mexico's perspective, rather than showing Texas to the full extent of its U.S.-claimed area? That is, Nuevo Mexico was larger than is shown because it included much of the land that Texas had claimed.
There are two bits to look at: What the U.S. claimed before the cession, and what they had after. Before, they claimed Texas and bits of three other states; after, they had Texas, the bits of three other states, Alta California, and Nuevo Mexico. So the cession map is accurate, as it only included the territories, but the Texas maps could maybe get a little more exposition. Any suggestions?
I was thinking that, from Mexico's point-of-view, their cession of Nuevo Mexico looked like it does in this map. Mexico no doubt considered none of its department of Santa Fe de Nuevo México as being part of the U.S. state of Texas. With the Texas annexation in 1845, the United States inherited Texas' unenforced claim to the east bank of the Rio Grande (which was successfully resisted by Mexican forces in 1841), a claim disputed by Mexico until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I'm still not clear on the issue; all that matters is that land was claimed by the U.S. and Mexico, and now is no longer claimed by Mexico. The map appears, in that regard, to be accurate? --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. Ok, I've thought about this. When the Republic of Texas became a state, the U.S. inherited its claim to all land east of the Rio Grande. As stated later in the article, "Texas had little to no control over the area outside of its eastern quarter."
I'd like to see a modification to the international maps of 12-29-1845 and 6-15-1846. It would be to show on those two maps the divide between the areas controlled by the Texas (i.e., U.S.) and by Mexico. I think you could show this the same on the maps for both days (for as you said, we do not track day-by-day gains in war).
The area controlled by Mexico would be noted as, "Claimed by Texas (U.S.); administered by Mexico." What do you think? Jeff in CA (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1858-12-3 The Howland Island maps' subtitles show the later date of 1859-9-6.
1859-7-6 Kentucky/Tennessee - Question: I would imagine this is the date that the change was given effect by law. Did the surveying team's result have the force of law? Was this the date it was ratified by both states?
Unknown when it was ratified; my best source ([11]) references a book I don't have access to. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1861-1-26 change map (Louisiana) - says "Unionst" area
1867-8-28 - Question: Had Midway Atoll been previously claimed by the Kingdom of Hawaii?
I'm guessing not; it had no inhabitants until it was claimed as a guano island. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1870-7-15 The words "disputed border with United Kingdom" (i.e., British Columbia) are confusing without indicating the border endpoint for Canada and the U.K. Aha! Is that what the thin solid red line is for? (If so, that line does not appear to be perpendicular to the 141st meridian, as I believe the current border is.) Is there a way to make this clearer?
Yep, that's the red line. I can add a line pointing to the areas, and making it the right angle is difficult due to, well, the angle. I've made a fix. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like this better. Thanks.
1901-3-23 Could there be pointers to the islands of Cagayan de Sulu and Sibutu? The article at Sibutu mentions also Cagayán de Jolo as the last Spanish possession.
Don't know about Jolo, maybe it's a typo for Sulu in that article. Please check the new version of the map; when going through and redoing the Pacific ones, that one was particularly nasty. I tried shading in the ceded area, but as you can see, it's difficult to snake an indicator line over into that corner. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the shaded areas make it very clear now. Thank you for all! Jeff in CA (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1924-6-5 - s/b 1924-2-1; According to the 1924 Annual Report of the Panama Canal Governor (https://ia601406.us.archive.org/3/items/annualreportofgo1924cana/annualreportofgo1924cana.pdf , original page 13) the basin for Madden Lake "was transferred from Panama to the United States as provided in Article II of the HayBunau-Varilla treaty and incorporated with the Canal Zone, effective February 1, 1924."
Added to to do.
1946-7-4 s/b Commonwealth "becomes" or "became" on the change map
Comment: Mississippi-Alabama border between March 3, 1817 and July 19, 1820:
When Congress created the new state of Mississippi and the Alabama Territory in 1817, the northwest corner of Washington County was used as the primary reference point for setting Mississippi's eastern boundary. South from the point, the bottom leg initially ran due south (at about 88.4575°W longitude) to the Gulf of Mexico and very close to the east side of Pascagoula Bay. The maps show the boundary at the angle that went into effect in 1820. Here is an image. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on 4-11-1955 map text:
Instead of stating, "Corridor ceded to Panama" on the map, it should say, "Panama's corridor re-aligned." Jeff in CA (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Iazyges
"Unorganized territory" is not a name; it simply means Congress has not passed an organic act" Should explain what an organic act is.
"While the U.S. exerted some military control over Cuba," Wouldn't occupation work better?
Probably. Modified.
"Wartime and post-war occupations by the United States of foreign territory are not noted unless they involved formal annexation. For example, the U.S. military occupied several countries in Central America and the Caribbean for many years during the Banana Wars, but as there was no annexation, this is not noted. Furthermore, while there was a civil government created for some areas after World War II, like the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1953 to 1972 and the American zones of occupation in southwest Germany, West Berlin, and Austria, these were never considered part of the United States and are omitted." Perhaps another list of all lands occupied by the USA should be made?
Perhaps, but that's well beyond the scope of this article.
"April 4, 1781 The Vermont Republic claimed what was called the "East Union," consisting of some towns in New Hampshire. They never gained control over the area.[6][7][8][9] & "June 16, 1781 The Vermont Republic claimed what was called the "West Union," consisting of some additional towns in New York. They never gained control over the area.[7][8][10][11] The specific date this occurred is unclear; sources suggest June 16, June 26, and July 18." Did anyone ever recognize vermonts claim to them or was it only ever them?
So far as I know, Vermont was never recognized by anyone.
"The Congress of the Confederation declared that the land that Connecticut has claimed in northeast Pennsylvania (and, unknown at the time, a small sliver of New York) was part of Pennsylvania, thus attempting to end the Pennamite–Yankee War.[16] While conflict would continue for some time, this was the end of formal claims by a state government." Perhaps a link to the continued conflict if it is a different article from the war?
It's not; the Pennamite-Yankee War was the whole thing.
"The government of Franklin held some control over the area, and even petitioned for statehood, but would only last a few years." Perhaps mention how the potential state ended?
It does, in the section about the end of Franklin on February 1789.
"At the time, it was simply referred to as the federal district." This isn't at all related but i find this hilarious.
"The Kingdom of Great Britain united with the Kingdom of Ireland, renaming itself the United Kingdom.[61]" Why is this here?
Because it changes the international dispute map, which previously said "Disputed with Great Britain", but "Great Britain" is no longer the name of a country.
"The garrison at Fort Detroit surrenders, leading to the United Kingdom occupying Michigan Territory.[88]" All of michigan fell because of that fort? it could be better phrased.
Pretty much, yeah; Michigan Territory was very sparsely populated, and the UK appears to have claimed the whole of Michigan Territory after the fall so it wouldn't necessarily matter if they held control over it.
"The region of northern New Hampshire disputed with the United Kingdom declared independence as the Republic of Indian Stream.[119] While tiny, it does appear to have maintained some control over its territory." Better wording as declared ITS independence perhaps.
I disagree but I'll add commas.
"Spain recognized the independence of Mexico, thus ending their involvement in the dispute over Miller County, Arkansas.[127]" was spain active in attempting to get miller county after they lost mexico?
Probably not.
"With this decision, Miller County was no longer disputed with Mexico and Texas." & "Proper surveying was conducted along the border between Arkansas and Texas, and the area claimed by Arkansas for Miller County was held to not belong Arkansas.[133]" What?
Can you elaborate on your concern?
It is phrased weirdly, perhaps held before the law to not belong to arkansas, because held to not belong sounds weird.
I didn't want to say "held to belong to Texas" because it was disputed with Texas and Mexico, so I simply wanted to say "wasn't part of Arkansas". --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "it was decided that the areas was not a part of arizona, but texas and mexico still disputed it" @Golbez:. Iazyges (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it says that in the international dispute line for that day, 'no longer disputed with Mexico and Texas' --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The State of Deseret dissolved itself, its functions and territory largely having been superseded by Utah Territory.[168]" was the state of deseret ever recognized as a state of the US by anyone?
Nope.
End of constructive criticism. Iazyges (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; hope you don't mind that I bulleted your remarks. I've responded to each one in turn. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool, thans for replying. Iazyges (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a peer review because I think that this article meets several of the Wikipedia criteria for becoming a featured article. I believe that this article is consise, covers the topic completely, is stable, and contains minimal point-of-view influence. I believe that this article describes a very complicated topic elegantly, and may be useful for both engineers and people with no engineering knowledge. If you agree that this article is a good candidate for becoming a featured article, please let me know. Otherwise, all of use who have worked on this article would appreciate your comments and edits.
(see later entry for reason for strike out)
Specifically, I would ask that you look at the following:
The length of the article: Does it consisely describe the topic? Is it too short anywhere, or too verbose?
The content of the article: Is it easy to understand? Is it useful both to laypeople and to those with some engineering knowledge? Is anything missing?
Grammar and tone: Does the article read like an encyclopedia article? Are there any mistakes?
Thank you, and if you have any questions feel free to leave a message on my user page.
-Âme Errante 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is rather short compared to other FAs, especially since this is quite a large subject - might need to reexamine the division between the main and daughter articles.
The lead is very short and definitely needs expansion.
I'm not convinced that the education/curriculum stuff is really an important part of an encyclopedia article on the subject.
One inline reference is pretty skimpy, even if most of this is general information.
Thank you, regalis. You certainly make some excellent points. In regards to what you've said, and what I've seen these past couple days as I've glanced at some of the engineering featured articles, I am going to withdraw my request, at least temporarily, for this article to be peer reviewed in the context of becoming a featured article. However, I still would encourage anyone who wants to peer review the article to do so, as I believe it has a good possiblity of later being featured.
Also, would anyone reject the idea of including a note about education in the main article and a link to an article on 'Heat transfer in education'? I believe that information on education is warranted here because the line between heat transfer and other thermo-sciences is necessarily fuzzy, and the general limit of the thermodynamics topics covered in this article is drawn where lines would typically be drawn in the classroom to separate heat transfer from energy conversion, thermofluids, and other subjects.
I'm not sure the education-related material really needs its own article, but maybe there's more information about it than I expect. Since the subject is an important part of engineering curricula, I'd suggest mentioning how it is taught (any notable teaching methods? controversies? etc) and why (what do practicing engineers use it for?) rather than a description of the prerequisites and the material for which it is a prerequisite, since that varies to some extent between schools and curricula. Opabinia regalis 06:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially edited this article, and tried to make it adhere to the guidlines set out in the Wikinovels project. I am looking for constructive responses, specifically those that deal with how this article can become an FA. Thanks very much -Adasta- 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
I've just passed the article for GA, and have left a list of suggestions as to how the article can be improved on the article's talk page. Moreschi 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several places where I dislike the style, especially the plot summary. This should be a rundown of the progression of the plot without including the styling of the actual text. I would rather see shorter summaries of other stories, like the Japanese one. But my main problem is one of ommission. Nowhere is the significance of Wilde's revisions to the second edition mentioned. There changes were used in his criminal trial to show his intentions of corrupting young men. Also I believe there were some remarks in the preface to the second edition that were also used in this manner. I will have to look up a source later but this aspect of the topic is of high encyclopedic value. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Awadewit
I'm sorry to say that this article should never have been passed for GA.
The biggest problem with this page is that it does not base its analysis of the novel on the work of literary critics or any kind of scholarly source. I clicked on almost every internet source. The sources here are appalling; they are sites like cliffs notes, sparknotes and gradesaver. These are not reliable scholarly sources and do not reflect the current state of scholarship on Wilde or Dorian Gray. Do we really want the outside world to think that wikipedia is basing its entries on books that students use to cheat in high school and college and that are notorious for their mistakes? I think not. Moreover, the information that you obtain from these sites could be just plain wrong; it will obviously be superficial and incomplete. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on solid scholarship by experts. See WP:RS. I would start with The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde edited by Peter Raby. It has introductory essays on major topics related to Wilde and his texts. It also has a helpful bibliography. I would then move on to the MLA database. The editors of this article need to spend months researching this article and totally rewriting it.
Moving on to other problems.
The lead has too much plot summary and a cliched statement about the book as a "classic."
The plot summary is difficult to follow at times and has some odd sentence constructions.
I am not a fan of character lists. The plot summary should adequately tell the reader who the important characters are. Wikipedia's novel pages look too much like sparknotes and not enough like an encyclopedia entry. Character lists only enhance this effect. There is no real information gained from these lists.
The theme of "aestheticism" which critics have definitely agreed is central to this novel is never explained, nor is its connection to duplicity. The quotations do not stand in for explanation.
The page also does not make it clear what is the editor's interpretation of Dorian, what the editor read at sparknotes and what is a scholar's interpretation. It is very confusing. It needs to sound less like a college essay. The extensive use of quotation is part of what gives it this appearance of a personal opinion.
While anti-Semitism might exist in the novel, the page has presented it as one of three major themes in Dorian. That seems far from fair to me. The editors need to read the scholarship on this text. If the scholarship emphasizes that theme to that extent, then the page should as well, but if it does not, then it should not be given undue weight and other, more important themes should be included.
Although there is no written proof that "Urashima Tarō" had a direct influence on The Picture of Dorian Gray, it is the notion of deferral of aging is central to both stories: Dorian's primary wish is "to be always young". - Why have you included this extensive section on the Japanese tale? What scholars have discussed this?
I would urge the editors to integrate the "allusions to other works" into the "themes" section. For example, why was Faust alluded to? The reason is that there are similar themes in Dorian - explain the themes and the Faust reference (using scholarly sources) together rather than separating them.
The former date is also significant in that it coincides with the year in Wilde's life during which he was introduced to homosexual practices. - This is a highly dubious statement. The editors need to read more about Wilde. The page should also take into account what literary critics and historians have said about "homosexuality" in the nineteenth century - it was not nearly as defined as it is now. There is much to be said on that topic.
The "literary significance" section seems like more of a "publication history" section.
The "Allusions from other works" is listy and seems to reference almost entirely works post-1980; delete or include pre-1980 works.
Much more referencing needs to be going on here in general, but research should help out with that. Awadewit 02:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article probably needs a bit work. How should it be inproved?
More info on Films, Radioshows or... Well Something?
8122417769 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing that I noticed is the "Most popular songs" listing. It seems to be very disorganised, and a lot of the secondary bullets seem to serve little purpose. Organising that list by date(year), and cutting out a lot of the secondary points seems like an idea to me. --Canadian-Bacon 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations lagging.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The date of publication of article "Who was Veer Savarkar?" is stated wrongly throughout the references. The correct date is 2004-08-23 and not 2006-07-28. Also, the article relies completely on a single reference. Try finding other references. Some links from external links section might help. Also, an infobox would be a welcome addition. Include and populate {{persondata}}. Whatever I knew about the topic is already present, so I am not in a position to comment on comprehensiveness. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first peer review request, so hopefully I didn't kill any babies or anything by doing something wrong. I spotted this article on a collaboration of the month page and after reading through it, I must say it is quite good, probably GA standard, IMHO. I'm asking for any feedback relating to what improvements need to be made before this meets the featured article criteria. As part of this, input from those unfamiliar with this topic is most welcome, as we need to know what needs elaboration. --Lethargy 06:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the assistance of others, I'm attempting to make NY 104 an article worth considering for Featured article status. Any suggestions to improve the article quality are welcome. --TMFT - C 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sourcing is sub-optimal - you may have to go into old newspaper articles or NYSDOT records to get reliable sources. Your local library might have New York Times access. --SPUI (T - C) 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. from fellow political philosophers on whether the article identifies and accurately describes the main positions in the GJ debate; and
2. from others on whether the article's clear, or too technical. Is there enough detail, or too little, or too much?
But all comments and improvements welcome, of course.
Cheers,
--Sam Clark 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I've made some minor changes to bring this in line with the standard format around here: links to main articles and futher templates above the section text, important names integrated into text, see also moved above references and other such minor formalities. As to accuracy of content, I'm pretty weak in this area so I'm not in a good position to judge or help out much there. The article is very clear and concise, but I would like to see some of the very brief sections expanded a bit. Something like the article philosophy of mind with two or even three paragraphs is the usual standard. The article is not at all over-technical and it is nicely organized and comprehensive. Just needs a little bit MORE detail, IMHO. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - the article looks a lot more professional now. I take the point about very brief sections, especially under 'Central questions' - but the advantage of having the separate headings is that the 3 questions appear in the contents.--Sam Clark 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's shaping up into a very nice article. There's always some redundancy, as this automtaed monster here points out. More imprtantly, watch out for words like "some", "many" and other so-called weasel words. Even a citation would be sufficient. Nice images!! Lastly, more citations never hurts on Wikipedia. Good work!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I read through the article and made a few changes to sentence structure, wording etc. I think its a very good start! A couple of suggestions:
I think the paragraph under the heading Central questions could be better worded.
Original: Three related questions are central to the problem of global justice, and the main positions in the debate may be distinguished by their approaches to them, and ways of relating them.
Suggested: There are three related questions that are central to the debate on global justice. These questions concern the scope of justice, the distribution of justice and the institutions responsible for justice. The main positions in the debate on global justice can be distinguished by their approaches to these questions.
I'm not quite sure if that is what is meant by the three headings (particularly distributive justice), but you get the idea.
You link the scope of justice to moral universalism without actually defining what moral universalism is, and then later in the article you refer to it. Perhaps you need to spell out how the question on scope of justice relates to moral unviersalism.
You don't do the little summary bit (the sentence which spells out its answers to the 3 questions) for The society of states section.
They're the only suggestions I have at this stage. I would love to read more about it, and the article could definitely go much deeper into the different issues in the future. In regards to your comments above about the history, it would be interesting to know why or if anything triggered the conceptual shift towards justice on a global level, and also if the different positions in the debate came all at once, or in response to one another, or a particular event. Does there seem to be any sense of reaching a consensus or is there strident opposition to other positions? Etc JenLouise 02:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - really helpful. I've made some changes which hopefully go some way to answering your points. Actually, I'm not sure quite why GJ has become such a big issue in politial philosophy recently. I suspect that, as with so much in the discipline, it'll turn out to be something to do with Rawls. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's here looks pretty good, but could it be more global in scope? This looks like a good summary of the main positions which are popular in the English speaking world. Is there a good way to mention Communist views, Confucian views, or Liberation Theology? All 3 seem like popular approaches to global justice that don't quite fit into the rubric here (are there more? What do Indians think? Do we need some discussion of post-colonialism?). Am I misunderstanding? Bmorton3 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for looking the article over. I'm in two minds about the issue you raise, to be honest. On one hand, of course you're right that anglo-american insititutional philosophy doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of justice for the whole world. On the other, I'm concerned that the article will bloat out of all recognition or usefulness if it tries to cover every such idea, as well as duplicating a lot of material from elsewhere (some of which I point to in the 'See also' section). I did consider moving the whole thing to a new article called 'Global justice (philosophy)', but I tend to think that political philosophy shouldn't be completely separated from the immediate puzzles and worries that make it necessary. At the moment, my half-hearted solution is the first sentence: Global justice is an issue in political philosophy. Whether this'll do, I'm not sure. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:55, 4 ugust 2006 (UTC)
Sam, I faced a similar problem with philosophy of mind and the issue of systemic bias arises often on Wikipedia re philsophy articles. My general impression is that most people are satisfied to see some mention (a few sentences) of, e.g., how Hindu or Buddist views fit on the spectrum of the basic poistins that you are talking about. Something like, "the Chinese moral thinker X expressed a cosmopolitan position which slightly differed from this in 1078" with reference and so on. The point is to try to find examples of non-Western thinkers and sources that can be interpersed throughout the text and then work it into the existing text without bloating it. I'm not sure if this would work in the case of this article, but its just a suggestion.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definately see your worries. Moving to Global Justice (philosophy) wouldn't help because most of these are philosophy positions. The Confucian line that the benevolent man loves all men, but loves them partially rather than impartially, is a direct response to Mohist critiques, and it works equally well against Utilitarians, and it was thought of as a philosophical position. Likewise for Communism, and post-colonial philosophies, they think of themselves as philosophy. Bloat is a real issue, but I don't know the right way to prevent it while keeping to the WP mission. If we wrote a short paragraph something like "Global Justice in other philosophical traditions" and just gestured to these, do you think that would pre-empt later bloat problems or just lead to them? Bmorton3 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a common way to approach the problem. Write up a new subsection, in the same summary style as the others, and link to other articles, Mohism, [[Confucianism], etc, where possible. To prevent later bloat just watch the page and insist that everything additional be cited and/or discussed on the talk-page before insertion. P.S.-- this is a pretty good review process here!!. Howvere, it shuld be ON the PR page so as to provide an example of how to go about this stuff. In fact, I'm going to move it there. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Along with Lac., I think the article looks good. There's a minimum of nonsense, it gets right to the point. My first thought is that it's a bit bare-bonesy. You had considered mentioning institutional aspects and obstacles before (i.e., talking about IMF/WTO, etc), and I'd encourage a followup with that. My second suggestion would be to break the complex sentences with semicolons down into smaller sentences, for ease of read. Lucidish 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for the comments. I'll have a look through for complex sentences (I'm an academic, I can't help it...). I wonder if both your and BMorton3's concerns could be addressed by a 'broader context' section which talks both about the issue of global justice in history, and the various institutional mechanisms which have been endorsed and challanged? Cheers, Sam Clark 14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize. I just received my Bachelor's degree, and find myself; using; colons: too much.
As long as it doesn't get too long, I think that a historical context section would be a great idea. It would also give the reader an opportunity to grasp the main issues. For instance, issues like the Marshall Plan, unilateral invasions (vs. multilateral ones), certain foreign policy doctrines (i.e., the Monroe Doctrine, esp. the Roosevelt corrollary), overseas labor, genocide, etc., are all serious topics concerning global justice which have currency in contemporary political debates and affairs. I know you touch on the variety of issues in the intro with the rhetorical questions, but a history section would ram the ideas home through illustration. Lucidish 15:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, you seem to have a few questions, first person locutions ("our", "we", etc) and italics. I didn't change them, but this is just to warn that some folks might not approve....--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know - but I'm operating according to DBuckner's 'defer to precedent' policy. Rhetorical questions, first person locutions, and italics (especially to indicate technical uses of terms) are all standard practice in philosophy, as we both know, and I don't see why they should be lost just to satisfy someone's - naming no names - particular tastes in prose. They're too useful, for a start. Thanks for all your comments and improvements, by the way. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be mainly about distributive justice, and the wikiarticle about Justice describes two other kinds. Is the Global Justice philosophy you are writing about here only about distribution, or is this article unfinished? If it's only about distribution, I think you should include that in your abstract.
I come from Hitchhiker's Guide, and first persons are verboten not because of any Unitedkingdomese predilection, but because it's part of what's understood to be what you do to make an entry encyclopedia-like. I have read the beginner's stuff on Wikipedia (I'm new!) and so it seems that doing third person stuff is something you'd do to adapt your knowledge to this particular format. Is this correct?
Hi, and thanks for your comments. 1. Distributive justice is one of the three central issues for the global justice debate (along with the scope of justice and institutions). The other kind of justice mentioned by Justice is retributive justice (not sure what the third kind you mention is), but there isn't really a separate debate about global retributive justice (to the extent that the issue is mentioned at all, it'd come under 'institutions' - international criminal courts etc.). 2. First person - the view of some active editors is that this should be avoided, but this isn't policy, to my knowledge. My view (expressed above) is that this is inappropriate for philosophical articles, because the appeal to what 'we' think is a useful tactic for exposing and challenging buried assumptions, and widely used in philosophy encyclopedias (I've just opened Honderich ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy at random and found two examples). Cheers, Sam Clark 09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the first person again. This new entry on "belief" in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy has about sixteen "wes" in the lead section alone. Without it, the article would sound so awkward and unnatural that the author would probably have had his work rejected. This is, of course, a professional (i.e. soldi!!), peer-reviewed (in the strict sense of that term) publication.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanting information on how to improve and get up to FA status, as it does have inline citation and other such what, meaning its on its way. Also wanting views from a non-rugby fan, as it may make sense to someone who watches the game, but may be confusing to others.--HamedogTalk|@ 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on this article a while off and on and have finally gotten most of the core information about the campaign up and cited. Of course looking at the same article for so long it's easy to lose perspective and miss any glaring or subtle problems still there. I'd appreciate any kind of criticism, especially with regard to making the long list of assassinations flow more smoothly and not look simply like a choppy list. Another text section that certainly needs work is the Criticism section, and I was curious as to how other controversial articles have been able to make sections like these comprehensive but not just a laundry list of each parties complaints. This article is also in dire need of some good pictures, so any suggestions on what types to include would be helpful. Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, the article is a very good read, and covers a topic I was not at all familiar with. I would say it is definitely a good article, and close to featured standard. If it were to be nominated for GA status, (*hint*) I would be more than willing to pass it, as unless I am mistaken I fall within the realm of "haven't significantly contributed to" the article.
While I cannot address the specific things you brought up in your request, I have made a few minor tweaks to the article I felt were necessary.
I think the "Black September and PLO response" section might need some clarification. Namely, how is an attack on a Saudi embassy in Sudan, capturing US, Saudi, Jordanian, and Belgian citizens a retaliation to Israeli attacks? This seems to me to be an unrelated incident, rather than a response to Operation Wrath of God. The lack of citations for sources in this section is also bothersome. The sentence "only a seven year prison sentence" might be POV. While I myself agree that this was far too small a punishment for terrorism, I'm not sure this is outside the normal punishments of the time and place.
A link to an article with more info on the Lufthansa hijacking should be included.
Again, this is a very good article which I hope becomes featured soon. --Lethargy 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick response! Looking back now I'm in complete agreement over the problems with the "Black September and PLO response" section. So far I've added several more attacks against Israeli targets that I had previously forgotten and tightened up the existing descriptions. I have also trimmed the Khartoum diplomatic assassinations summary to only a single sentence because it was only an indirect attack. In the "Background and planning" section I created a link in the phrase released just months later, which jumps to a page that has a slightly larger description of the Lufthansa hijacking with sources. The sentence you marked for POV has also just been deleted from the section as part of the clarification. I appreciate the suggestion for GA nomination, and will certainly do so once this peer review is over.--Joshdboz 13:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably excessive use of the words "terrorists"/"terrorism" in Wikipedia's narrative voice, with absolutely no citation of who characterizes this as terrorism. Not that I disagree, just that (as you probably know) there has been much discussion about this at Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and the pretty broad consensus is that it is a POV word unless someone uses it about themselves (and of course few do). Not that it can't be there, but we should be very cautious about using it, and especially overusing, in Wikpidia's narrative voice. The problem isn't so much in a case like this; it's that there is no clean place to draw the line.
Any reason for linking years so often? Outside of birth & death dates in biographies, MoS is generally against this unless the event looms so large as to be mentioned in the "year" article. At the same time, month-day-year dates here are often unlinked, whereas MoS encourages linking those to allow variable formatting.
"…outrage forced Golda Meir to…" is a bit vague and lacking agency. Whose outrage forced her to do this?
The "criticisms" section contains criticism only of assassination of innocents. Surely it should not be hard to find criticism of either the efficacy or ethics of assassination/"targetted killings" as a tactic even when used against "guilty" parties. Most of the "criticism" section is devoted to what is more a defense than a criticism (paraphrasing, Klein seems to be saying "they got the wrong guys, but that's OK").
"Using the pseudonym Avner, Aviv claimed in Jonas' book to have led a hit squad…": does this not mean to say something like "According to Jonas [and this preceding phrase may not be needed] Aviv claimed that, using the pseudonym Avner, he led a hit squad…" - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, I've tried to deal with each.
The terrorist/terrorism issue is as you mentioned a tricky one. I've tried to where I could change the word terrorist to an equivalent term in the specific context (militant, hijacker, etc.). As of now I am keeping references to the perpetrators of the Munich massacre as "terrorists", a) because it is used throughout the article Munich massacre and b) I think any objective observer, regardless of how justified he/she believes Black September was, would consider it an incident of terrorism. Obviously my second point could be up for contention, and if more users disagree with the use of the term, I would be happy to change.
Years were linked somewhat haphazardly. I believe that I've fixed it so only month-date-years are linked for variable formatting.
The statement now reads: "In the aftermath of the affair, international outrage over the mistaken murder forced Golda Meir to order the suspension of Operation Wrath of God." It is also sourced.
I have yet to work on the criticism section, mainly because I need to do some more research. I'll add and adjust it as soon as possible.
I have tried to clarify the Avner/Aviv/Jonas debacle. It now reads: "The 1984 book... by Canadian journalist George Jonas, purports to tell the story of the Israeli assassination squad from the viewpoint of a self-described former Mossad agent and leader of the squad, Avner. Avner has since been revealed as a pseudonym for Yuval Aviv, an Israeli who now runs a private investigation agency in New York. However, Aviv's account...".
Thanks again for the excellent crits, I'd welcome any follow up points if you have.--Joshdboz 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just added some criticism from relatives of those who died at Munich.--Joshdboz 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that this is one of the vital articles that hasn't made it to featured status yet. I did not contribute to this page up to this point. After reading it, though, I saw it was well referenced and comprehensive. I would like to see this brought up to FA status, and would be happy to help! Dafoeberezin3494 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pretty comprehensive. There are several things that need work;
The lead is far too long, it should be a summary of the article, further suggestions and instructions at WP:LEAD
Legacy doesn't need subheadings, it breaks up the flow of the text for no appreciable gain
The list of influences whould be better discussed in the text
The trivia and naming sections seem unnecessary.
Myths probably don't need their own section either and could be worked into the narrative
Even if you get rid of some of the sections I suggested you get rid of, the table of contents is very long, other parts of the article should be merged together where logical to shorten it
There are lots of places in the article where single sentences float all on their lonesome, a sentence is not a paragraph and these should be collected together into longer sections.
Thank you! I started by merging the trivia section. More work to come soon. Dafoeberezin3494 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some remarks that may be useful:
Reference is mainly to digestive material: Callow, Wilkie, Nemeczek, Erickson. I would prefer to see other names: Jan Hulsker, Ronald Pickvance, Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, for example.
Wilkie should be toned down. This is no reliable reference work, but a journalist's collection of gossip collected decades after Van Gogh's dead. It would best fit to a section Gossip, sub-Legacy.
Research, on the other hand, would be a highly desirable section, for there were recently a couple of discoveries, which put new light on various aspects of Van Gogh's work.
Forgeries, too, should have their chapter: One cannot understand certain recent discussion, without the previous ones.
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biography is just too fragmented. Maybe a scheme of dividing the years of his life other than where he stayed should be adopted (may be artistic "periods"?). Also myths and medical records don't really belong in bio and should be made separate. I guess I don't need to mention that there shouldn't be two legacy sections--ppm 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was just created today. I would really appreciate any suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.147.113 (talk • contribs) 05:01, July 27, 2006 (UTC)
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of contributions to the article particuler in the section dealing with the franchise's departure. I'm skeptical about the notion that the Whalers were forced out in attempt to get the New England Patriots. I'm asking for third party fact checking and overall review. If this is the wrong venue, my apologies in advance. ccwaters 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article from a final paper, and I could use some suggestions about making it more encyclopedic. It also looks a bit blocky or wordy to me, and I'm not sure how it could be better broken down. Although I would appreciate any suggestions about anything regarding the article. Sarge Baldy 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is too wordy for an article that is explaining a lot of concepts and organizations that will be alien to many English readers. In cases like this I would say it is better to be too wordy than not wordy enough.
Some comments:
The beginning of the Social History section, didn't flow well - there was no history of the outcaste groups. I've rearranged it to what I think is better, but some more background on the groups would be good. You could do with some more dates in that section too to make it clear that the Joseon Dynasty is after the Mongol invasion.
There is no current status:the history tails off in the early 20th century. Do they still exist? If so, what is their status in modern Korea. What happened to the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa?
You should decide whether to use Paekchŏng or Baekjeong. Explain it at the beginning and then stick to one. (I recommend Baekjeong as that is the title of the article).
I created a redirect from Paekchŏng as it didn't exist.
It would be nice to have more than 3 references in an article this long.
Hope this helps. Yomangani 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a number of the problems expressed. Some of it means filling in the article with information I'm not sure I have. Although I thought I left it pretty clear that the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa disbanded. I don't know quite what has happened since there. I believe I read that the group is fully integrated now, but it's something that needs a clear reference. The reason for the discrepancy of the term is that I was using Paekchŏng (the more common form and my own preference) where Wikipedia standardizes Korean under Revised Romanization.
I'm not sure the references are quite so light. The first two total to 69 pages, and the third reference is a book. Unfortunately, I only had time to read one chapter of the book, and it was the last one (concerning the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa and modern movements), which is why that portion of the article is more detailed than the rest. Reading through the rest of the book would obviously help, and I'll probably purchase a copy later. The other issue regarding references is a bit more problematic. Essentially these are the only good English language sources of information. Both authors extensively reviewed Japanese and Korean resources on the topic; I know neither language. Obviously I would appreciate any efforts to bring more references to the topic, and double-checking to make sure I didn't make any obvious mistakes using the ones I did. Thank you, I appreciate the comments. Sarge Baldy 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa Youth Vanguard disbanding (damn pronouns). Maybe you can hunt down a Korean speaker (try Wikipedia:Translators_available#Korean-to-English) to see if any relevant articles appear on the Korean wikipedia. Yomangani 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I can see how that could be confusing. The Hyŏngp'yŏngsa Youth Vanguard likely never even existed. That was an accusation, and one that had little evidence and didn't hold up in court. Joong-Seop Kim's interpretation was that it was simply a ploy by Japanese officials to remove the radical elements from the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa. I hope that reads somewhat more clearly now? But that is another good suggestion. Sarge Baldy 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's obvious (even too me) now. Yomangani 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is definitely shaping up. Lots of references, thorough, with a lot of history. Some recent efforts have been made to make the article more balanced, although I'm sure more work could be done there. Inviting more input from the community.--Esprit15d 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that achieving and maintaining a proper balance is going to be a long term concern for this page. One thing that jumped out at me with regards to the balance is the appearance of exclusive use of PETA sources for the time line section. Instead of having the grouping of four references, all to the peta website, at the top of the list it would be better to move the individual references to the portions of the time line where the information is actually used. --Allen3talk 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to have a list of every website peta has ever made. Jon513 23:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate any feedback regarding this article. It has been written at length, thuroughly referenced and has appropriate pictures with fair-use rationales. Thank you for taking the time to read, and if you do so, thank you for commenting. Any concerns will be dealt with promptly. michaeltalk 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, I'm quite impressed by the work of all of the contributors. :) However, the second paragraph seems out of place. I think it should be merged into the "Early life" section. Also, some sections are quite lengthy. Perhaps they could be further broken up? "Early life", for instance, could have subsections about Mr. Dunstan's family, childhood, education, and so on. Let me know if I can be of any help and keep up the good work. :) Srose(talk) 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've just made some nitpicking grammar corrections to the "Early life" section. There are more minor grammar tweaks to be made sporadically throughout the article, but I doubt I'll get to them today, unfortunately. Srose(talk) 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm pretty sure some minor copyediting will still have to be done. michaeltalk 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive. I'm quite happy with the 2nd paragraph as a summary in the lead section, and don't htink the sections need breaking up, apart from The Dunstan Decade. A few minor points:
Is it really accurate to say he "moved back to SA" in the 2nd para?
"Eventually rising..." in the 2nd para isn't a full sentence.
Why was Dunstan joining the ALP "never expected" not just "not expected"?
Elections section: calling the restrictions on abortion "appropriate" seems POV.
The statement "another term of Labor govt sworn in on a knife edge" in 1975 doesn't make much sense to me.
Congratulations for another good article, Michael. JPD (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes you've suggested. I was originally going to break down the 'Dunstan Decade' section but couldn't organise it properly and figure suitable headers. I was hoping it would appear good enough as one full section. Thanks for the kind comments. :) michaeltalk 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see anything at all wrong with this article as is. I've been keeping an eye on its progress for a while, and every issue I had with it has been long fixed - kudos. I wonder if there would be any chance we could make a fair use justification for a pink hotpants photograph though, as it was perhaps his most defining moment. Rebecca 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no pink hotpants photographs online; however, I'm considering a stroll into the State Library in the next week - I'll see what I can do then. A fair use summary for such a photograph would be easy - its a very distinctive moment. michaeltalk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good, there is no fair use justification for the festival centre picture since it could easily be made by a wikipedian in Adelaide, so it should be removed. It'd be a good idea to use a consistent format for the fair use rationales on all the others. Some of the captions are not very informative. There are some places in the article where the sentences are too long/complex and there are also some words that are going to be hard for non AusE speakers like stint in the lead - another copyedit from a non Aussie might be a good idea. --Peta 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I'll take a shot of the theatre next time I'm in the city, and will review the fair use rationales. A copyedit from a non-Australian would be ideal; however, I don't know any of them! Any suggestions? michaeltalk 08:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wayward used to do a good copyedit - I'm not sure how active s/he is at the moment.--Peta 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very impressed by the article and my only concern is that someone may not accept the "Fair Use" argument for some of the images. Well done. --Roisterer 15:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited the first few paragraphs, and may return to do more. Foreigners will need to have "Liberal" explained as an Australian misnomer for conservative, on first occurrence. Tony 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't expecting a copyedit but thank you regardless! I had hoped I made it obvious regarding the liberal conservative party, but I'll add in something more blunt. michaeltalk 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good article. I've gone through and tidied up the writing where I thought it necessary. I'd second Srose's comment above that the second paragraph of the intro needs work.--cj | talk 06:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a lot of work on this article over the past few weeks, taking it from a monolithic 80KB [12], spliting it into 6 sub-articles by time period, and practically rewriting the main article into a relatively lean 37KB. I'd like this peer review to just focus on the main History of the Philippines article, and what it needs to meet FA criteria. If this peer review turns out nicely I would really like to take the article all the way to FA status. :) Coffee 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick skim revealed a couple of problems from my perspective:
There are duplicate links to the same article. Cebu, for example, and both Spain and Spanish link to Spain in the same paragraph. There are many more examples. The style guide prefers linking only once, typically the first appearance in the article.
New Spain is noted as Mexico the second time it appears; shouldn't the note be with the first occurance? And this is another example of duplicate linking.
Can you put at least an introductory paragraph at the beginning of "American colonial period (1898-1946)" so that the first subcategory, "Philippine-American War" doesn't follow immediately? It flows better that way.
I prefer the end sections of See also / Notes / References / Further reading / External links, which is consistent with most articles. Most of your "General references" appear to be external links and none seem to be cited in the notes section, so perhaps it more accurately a "Further reading" section. Using another encyclopedia for a reference doesn't seem optimal to me; I would prefer to see a stronger source. I'm not sure how FAC reviewers will respond to these end section issues.
Thank you very much for the comments. I've fixed points #1, 2 and 3 that you mentioned. As for #4... all of those links were used as references, and I'm working on converting all of them to footnotes so perhaps the "General references" part could later be done away with. Coffee 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of the automated suggestions: (1) Wikilink dates, (2) headings don't start with "The", (3) weasel words, (4) watch for redundancies, and (5) copyedit. I've taken care of #1 and #2. All the obvious weasel words have citations (and if any others remain, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out). As for #4 and #5... I've looked over the article many times, so I guess I've done what I can do. Coffee 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are the things that I think need reviewing. (Xtremeruna21)
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears biased against social promotion. Evidence of this is the sentence "which are very important before entering the high school" in the lead and the placement of "Arguments against social promotion" before "Arguments for social promotion". You might also consider removing "not necessarily valid". Where you say social promotion was stopped you need to explain how was it stopped. Was there a bill introduced in New York City, standardized tests that needed to be passed to move to the next grade, etc. You need to provide evidence that the practice is being used at elementary and middle school level. You need to explain if it varies from one school/school board to the next. More discussion of research in the area or related to the area would also benefit the article. Finally, inline citations would be really useful in an article like this. Cedars 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been created almost exclusively by the hard work of User:Bastin8, who has turned this article from non-existence to (IMO) FA standard in only a very few weeks. All comments appreciated; but particularly, are the photos appropriate and are the two that are not PD fine from a licencing and tagging POV?
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an excellent article. Nice work! The only thing I found amiss were the image labels assocated with the image in the "Invasion" section. For some reason those appeared over the text section in my IE browser, rather than over the image. There are a few red links on the page, which may need to be addressed if this is take for FA. (But the page is definitely GA quality, IMO). The Marie-Adélaïde and Grande Duchesse Charlotte images have a deletion warning on its page, so you might want to take a look at that. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the praise. Two of the three issues raised, I predicted on the talk page, so they'll be addressed in no time. I'm in the process of fixing the red links (by creating stubs). I didn't upload the pictures, so I'm not au fait with their status; I think that the pictures of the Grand Duchesses will have to be Fair Use (they're only allowed under a non-commercial basis, although the Marie-Adélaïde one may be public domain, as it was taken before the First World War).
A pressing issue is that of the text links; using both Firefox and IE, the text links are in the right place for me (and that's for all resolutions and several different settings, too). If any more people have trouble with it, I'll just change it to labels in the image; the only reason that the labels are overlaid is that I thought that it would be a neat way to help users come to grips with Luxembourgian geography. Bastin 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the style information for the label templates it should have worked. I'm not sure why it didn't unless there's a bug in my version of IE, or else it has something to do with my security settings. I'm using version 6.0.2900.2180... — RJH (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might explain it. My IE is 7.0.5450.4 (although I use Firefox for just about everything), so the problem may have been fixed with the newer version. If that's the case, and those using IE 6 do have trouble viewing the map, I will make the afore-mentioned changes. Bastin 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've now resolved all the red links, some with stubs, some with full articles.
Luxembourg's Service Information et Presse (a government agency and the publishers of the pictures) have informed me that they aren't aware of any factors that might have released them into the public domain, and that they are unwilling to change their licence situation (i.e. non-commerial use only). Since they can't qualify under Fair Use (because the topic isn't related closely enough), I've deleted them from the article and am looking for alternative pictures; I've contacted a few websites that offer alternatives, asking if they might allow free licensing of their images. Bastin 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Since my last update, I've had no responses to my requests to webmasters, which is irritating. A picture of Marie-Adélaïde would really be useful; she was an instrumental character to the political discord, relations with Germany, and the subsequent revolutions, and her youth (20 when the war broke out) ought to be emphasised. Nonetheless, the article doesn't hang on such a picture, and there are many images already, so I think that it is acceptable as is. Are there any more comments or criticisms to be made? For one, I could imagine it having more categories, but I can't find another one that's suitable. Bastin 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
A long article which is quite impressive in its coverage. Some referencing and tightening could put it on the fast track to FA status. - RoyBoy800 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
You can start by turing the list in the "Types of elevator hoist mechanisms" (more specifically the "Hydraulic type") section into a prosaic paragraph. Other sections such as the "Controls in early elevators" and "The elevator algorithm" can also be improved in the same way. The lists at the end of the article sould be moved to their own article along with most of the larger sections to comply with WP:SUMMARY. The lead needs to be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. Tarret 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I notice, that in my view can be improved as it heads towards FA candidacy:
Lead is too short, as Tarret mentioned.
Needs footnotes, at approximately 1 per paragraph.
Some 55 items are on the table of contents, this could be reduced to a fraction of this. I suggest merging many sections, or using ;heading for many of the sub headings.
Paragraphs are often short and choppy, often they are one sentance long or bulleted items. These can be merged and expanded into full paragraphs.
Apart from these concerns, it is a very informative article with good use of illustrations. Best of luck. DVD+ R/W 05:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good article - A few points though.
Support all of the above comments, particularly regarding lead length and TOC length.
"A special type of elevator is the paternoster, a constantly moving chain of boxes. A similar concept moves only a small platform, which the rider mounts while using a handhold and was once seen in multi-story industrial plants." If you read the article on Paternosters instances are given (particularly in Europe) of their use in many public buildings, universities and office buildings (See IG Farben Building).
I remember watching a documentary some years back about Norman Foster's Tokyo Millenium Tower proposals[13]. Central to his concept was the proposed use of "maglev" elevators (I think) to overcome the height 'limit' and speed restrictions of cable supported elevators (presumably due to cable flex and speed)[14]. No mention is given that I can see, of the design limits of Traction elevators or the "maglev" elevators (unless they come under the "climbing electric elevator" section). One approach is to provide 'transit floors' where people get out of one elevator and into another serving higher floors[15]. This needs more research and a discussion about how elevator design limits the height and economic viability of skyscrapers. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about a mention of the Space elevator? [16] --Mcginnly | Natter 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important article and could use peer review. Thanks! --South Philly 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some of the clean-up. It probably needs to be bulked up with refenced work. --evrik 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments:-
Article is currently suffering badly from a lack of content. The history section is only 3 sentences long. Significance is only 2 and Today is only 1. Needs to be much much more.
Use [[Wikipedia:Summary style)) to perhaps give a concise description of the Second continental congress, declaration of independence and the constitution so that the article could be read by someone without a working knowledge of American history. Don't go overboard and always relate back to the building.
Perhaps a quick summary sentence as to the significance of the Liberty Bell for us non-U.S. people (Oh it's the one with the cracka and the rivet!, I remember now)?
Suggest sections on Architeture (Or Building). Who built the clock?
The gallery pics are nice but would be better served to illustrate the text.
Today section - Change to Recent History - I'd be inclined to include some of the protest anecdotes from the website you cite. Communist bums! Vietnam etc. etc. the building is a focus and distills american history as a venue for protest.
Has the building ever been altered, extended, refurbished, remodelled? When, By whom, in what way, why etc.etc.?
Along with some random anons, I have been the only major contributor to the article for a while. I would eventually like it to become featured. I have tried to look at pages for similar liberal arts colleges and get a feel for what's going on. However, I need some other people to look over the article and tell me what direction to take it in. --Liface 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
If possible, move references from the lead section down to the appropriate section of the main text ([1], for example).
Years are inconsistently linked. I suggest dropping all year, as of year and decade links; they are not needed to provide context.
Pay attention to section header capitalization: International Programs => International programs
There are a lot of red links in the notable alumni section; not sure what to suggest there.
Some of the lists will need to become prose for FA.
Thanks for the comments! What do you mean by lists becoming prose? --Liface 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to rewrite some of the bulletted lists into regular paragraphs, such as those under "Achievements" and "Traditions and events." The more of these you can convert, the better it will go for FA. JonHarder 12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a long way to go before it could become a FA, but, all in all, it's not too bad. Here are my problems and suggestions:
Comprehensiveness is not nearly there. For comprehensive university articles, see FA's University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and Duke University. For example, there should be a Campus section dedicated to the scenery and important facilities/buildings on campus. I personally know very little about Puget Sound, but the one thing I have heard is that the campus is beautiful.
Reference format is not correct. See above examples for proper techniques.
Article is under-referenced. Excluding the Notable Alumni section, there are only 8 total references. In particular, the lead (zero refs) and the History section (1 ref) are very under-referenced. Every fact should have a citation. I disagree with JonHarder about merely moving the references from the lead. Having them in both places would be more appropriate. See current FA's for good techniques.
Organization issues. Focus of article is not quite what it should be at times - it goes into too much depth in some areas, while neglecting others all together. For example, Tuition and finances and Fraternities and sororities do not deserve their own sections. Rather, a more appropriate way to deal with this would be to create a Profile section under Academics for the tuition/fin aid info. Traditions and events and Fraternities and sororities should be under a Student life section.
Agree wholeheartedly with JonHarder's important suggestion about converting bullets to prose. This is a must for FA's. There should be very few (ideally, zero) bullet points in the article. In the Athletics section, instead of listing the sports in a bullet manner, they should be stated in prose (i.e. The University's 21 varsity sports teams include: Men's Baseball, Men's and Women's Basketball, Men's and Women's Crew (competes in the Northwest Collegiate Rowing Conference), Men's and Women's Cross Country, etc.). This is just an example. I personally think all the sports should not be listed. The number is appropriate and particular sports that have been outstanding recently merit mentioning as well. Notable Alumni should be converted to prose as well and needs to be expanded greatly.
One photo, which doesn't even provide a fair use rationale, is not nearly enough for an article of a college.
Prose is ok, but definitely not brilliant, one of the requirements for FA. A thorough copyedit is in order.
I and other users have put a lot of effort into this article, particularly since I first started editing it. I haven't had much time to add more to the article recently, but I'm going to get back to it. I would really appreciate any comments at all. Comments, questions, insults... Anything! ♠ SG→Talk 11:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The style guide suggests a standard order and naming for the end sections: See also, Notes, References, Further reading (or Bibliography, both optional), and External links. Bringing the See also section up would help conform to this layout. The current Sources section is non-standard and is really more like a See also since it is all internal links. See MoS:HEAD, WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE for help in this area. JonHarder 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! that will help plenty. I've updated the article with those changes, and I've also axed the "See also" section, as it only linked to two articles that were already linked. The "References" (previously "Sources") section is also updated with a much more standard style, though I thought it would be best to separate the ancient sources and modern books. What do you think now? ♠ SG→Talk 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. It is unusual to list other articles as references. I'm not objecting, but am not sure how feature article reviewers will respond. Reading through the article more closely I have some additional comments:
It would help to have a good copyedit by another person. Examples of things to look for are weasel words like "sometimes considered," clumsy wording like "apparently soon managed," overuse or redundant use of the word "also."
At one point there is a "--" that could be converted to a "—" (mdash). This form of punctuation is often misused, but I don't know the rules!
The images are great, but get a bit crowded in the area of the Cyrus Cylinder.
At one point there is a "citation needed" request which should be fulfilled if this article is headed for FA.
Usually links to other articles are not duplicated. For example there are several links to Darius the Great and its variations.
Usually an article is not placed both in a category and its subcategory. This article is in both "Category:Achaemenid dynasty" and "Category:Monarchs of Persia." Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, it should be in one or the other.
Wow, you are very thorough; thanks again! I've given it another copyedit, but I agree, it would probably be best to find a third-party to give it a look. I've gotten rid of anything I could find that was redundant or could be considered weasel words (with the exception of two "considered" statements which are attributed). I got rid of the Persepolis image, as it wasn't necessary. Now that section is much less crowded. I know the references section is unusual, but I think it's the best way to manage it; if there's a better solution, I'll gladly do it. ♠ SG→Talk 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A final suggestion. I think for FA status, the three references in the lead section need to be moved down into the appropriate sections within the main article. Also, it looks like the first note should be broken into two different notes because it is about two separate topics. If you make these changes, I am prepared to nominate it for Good Article status. JonHarder 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have to be moved? I can't really see it passing FA without the Cylinder refs being there. The line about the Cyrus Cylinder being called "the first declaration of human rights" is not accepted by everyone, so I had to source it. I've broken up the first ref, though. On another note, Enceladus (moon), which was recently "Today's FA" a few days ago, has a ref in the opening paragraph – as does Final Fantasy X, from the day before. ♠ SG→Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong; I thought they complained about that. My preference is still to see them moved down into the part of the text that expands on those particular topics. JonHarder 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I checked it out, and I couldn't find anything about it. The first reference (Old Persian name) isn't noted anywhere else in the text, so I left it up there at the top. The two about the Cyrus Cylinder are left there to avoid an NPOV issue. I think I will leave it as is, but I will keep your note in mind. If the issue is raised in the GA or FA noms, it will only take a moment to change. What do you think about that plan? ♠ SG→Talk 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did more checking too, it is not guideline, but this discussion shows the various sides of the issue. My preference aligns with those that believe the lead material will be expanded farther down in the article and that is a better place to put the inline citations. I imagine there are cases where parts of the lead can't easily be expanded and it's redundant and clumsy just to repeat the same sentence in the main body. If the citation is moved down among the expanded material, there shouldn't be a NPOV problem. Anyway, that's my preference, but do what works for you and what you think is best for the article. It looks like leaving them in the lead should not get in the way of GA or FA. JonHarder 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, after reading that discussion, I have to agree with you. It looks like a good idea to move it out of the lead. If anyone complains, I'll just tell them where to look for the ref and point them to that discussion. However, I have not moved the Old Persian ref, as there is nowhere to move it to. ♠ SG→Talk 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already used the automated PR suggestions; they were very helpful, thanks! ♠ SG→Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few copyedits; feel free to revert if you don't like the result. Some points:
Per WP:CAPTION, some FA reviewers' prefer that captions be complete sentences. Take advantage of this to add information that reinforces your article.
"Several issues of Cyrus' early life are unclear: whether he was born in 576 BC or 590 BC, and whom he took for his wife." That's two issues, not several, and I don't understand why Cyrus' wife is an issue of his early years. Was it customary to be betrothed as a child? If so, that should be made clear; if not, you should probably mention his wife later in the article.
"they further note his marriage to Princess Mandane of Media, a daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes, and Princess Aryenis of Lydia; Cyrus II was the result of this union." It's not immediately clear that Cyrus II is Cyrus the Great. Also... and I hesitate to write this... it rather sounds as though Cyrus was the product of a ménage à trois. (Come to think of it, that would explain how Gilgamesh could be two-thirds god... but I digress.) ;-)
The section called "Personal life" really isn't about his personal life. How about "Dynastic history" or "Family history"?
The section called "Early life" really isn't about his early life. How about "Legendary birth"?
"Arsames defected to Cyrus" doesn't sound right. Who is he defecting from — himself? How about "Arsames abdicated his rulership of Persia and pledged allegiance to Cyrus"? Also, it's not clear whether Arsames' son Hystaspes became king in his stead, or whether Cyrus took control of Persia. If the former, then how about ""Arsames relinquished rulership of Persia to his son Hystaspes and pledged allegiance to Cyrus. Hystaspes' son, Darius, would later become Darius the Great, Shahanshah of Persia"? If the latter, do we have any idea why a king would willingly hand over power, especially to someone not his own son?
"Several years later, when Astyages discovered that his grandson was still alive, he ordered that the son of Harpagus be beheaded and served to his father on a dinner platter. Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus, who by then was living again with his noble and biological parents..." This is confusing. It's not clear at first that "the son of Harpagus" doesn't refer to the adopted Cyrus. It's not clear whether this grisly order was carried out (we know there was legendary precedent for the king's orders being circumvented, after all). The fact that Cyrus is now living with his noble parents again is a big, unexplained, unexpected jump in the story. If these concerns simply reflect the ambiguity of the source material, that's fine, but there should be some way to organize this information into a more linear narrative.
The "Kings of Persia" section seems to shift between legend (third-hand reports with mythical elements) to documentable fact ("In 559 BC...") and back again, so that I'm unclear how much of this section is history and how much is myth. Again, that may be an inherent difficulty with the source material, but try to give the reader some sense of which facts are considered reliable history.
"Cyrus led the Persians and his armies." Were the armies not Persian?
"conquered the Median Empire in the sixth year of Nabonidus' rule." This makes it seem as though Nabodinus were the ruler of Medes rather than Babylon.
Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the title of the article. You can probably make a case that "Cyrus cylinder" is a valid exception to this rule, but how about changing "Cyrus' wars" to "Military campaigns"?
"Cyrus defeated Nabonidus." If you haven't yet mentioned that Nabodinus was ruler of Babylon, you should do so here. The reader shouldn't have to click a blue link to know who he is and why he matters.
"(written before any new conquests could have been made other than Egypt)," This parenthetical phrase impedes flow, is tricky to parse, and doesn't contribute to your main point. Why not remove it?
The "Administration of the Empire" section is really too short to merit its own section. Could it be combined with the following section as "Politics"? That will also eliminate the problem of having the word "Cyrus" in a section header, which is against the MOS. Better yet, move both of these sections into the "Legacy" section below. You seem to be covering related material twice.
"Cyrus died in battle, but the Achaemenid empire was to reach its zenith long after his demise." The second half of this sentence impedes flow and has nothing to do with the section topic, Cyrus' death. I'm moving it to the "Legacy" section, unless you prefer otherwise.
Hope this is helpful! Peirigill 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to make those changes! As for your suggestions, I agree with them all to some extent. Reading that "marriage" line made me chuckle; it's very easy to understand your own writing, but reading it a second time, I realized where the problem lied.
You know what, I originally started making those few small changes you suggested, but as I went along, I kept adding more, and more, until... Well, you be the judge of what happened: [17]. I have to thank you for getting me in the mood to do that, but I should also make some sort of threat, as the article probably has even more problems now!
I would appreciate it if you could take another look, as it has undergone a vast — almost entire — rewrite. ♠ SG→Talk 08:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm also aware that the article is in desperate need of sourcing for all the new information that was added. I'll get around to this soon, but if you could make note of any statements that you feel must have referencing, it'd make everything much easier. And one final note, I know Gaumata redirects to Smerdis of Persia; I plan on breaking the article in two later on, as they are not the same person. ♠ SG→Talk 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in early life is of a symbol that isn't talked about in that section, so it really doesn't help with furthering our understanding of Cyrus. Also, in Babylonia, the picture, while nice, and peripherally related to the section in that it depicts someone mentioned in that section, might be better if it were replaced with a map showing all the lands that came under Cyrus's rule, to help illustrate for readers the sentence "Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet" plange 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I'm rather hard-pressed to find free images of Cyrus. The Faravahar image is relevant to the article, but not to that section in particular — though, he was raised with Zoroastrianism, and the image starts in the "background" section. As for the Nabonidus image, again, you're right; we do need a map, but there is only one map I've been able to find that shows the Achaemenid Empire during Cyrus' rule, and it lacks proper copyright information. However, I'm going to see what I can do about making a map later today, using one of the maps from Wikipedia:Maps. ♠ SG→Talk 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! If you don't have luck with the map making, I think Military history WikiProject has a map-making request area? plange 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good idea. If I don't get far with cartography, I'll be sure to ask around there. ♠ SG→Talk 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've tried my hand at map making, so I've replaced the Nabonidus image with the map I made. Take a look, let me know how you feel. Of course, first of all, this is my first shot at making a map, and second, I am still partially drunk. I should probably also add the locations of each of the cities mentioned in the article (ie. Sippar, Babylon, Sardes, Pasargadae) instead of only those few. ♠ SG→Talk 08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's awesome! Sooo much better! It really illustrates so well how large his empire was! Great job! plange 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And I responded to your inquiry on your talk page. So, as it is now, do you think the article would make it through the featured article nomination process, or should I wait for more people to chime in on the peer review? ♠ SG→Talk 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peirigill again. A few thoughts on your re-write:
"Faravahar, the symbol of Zoroastrianism, which influenced Cyrus to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of Persia." This isn't a complete sentence. Also, I don't understand what "non-imposing religion" means. I've changed it, but, like with the map image, I'm really not sure what to replace the caption with. Any suggestions?
"Little is known of Cyrus' early years, as the sources detailing that part of his life are few, and many have been damaged or lost." Seems contradictory: if there were few sources, how could many have been lost? It's not clear to me whether there were never many sources to begin with, or whether many used to exist but only few are extant. Changed.
"According to most sources, he was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." Also ambiguous: do most sources give both dates, or do most sources say either one date or the other? The simplest fix is simply "He was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." Done.
"While Herodotus' description may be a legend, it does give insight into the figures surrounding Cyrus the Great's early life." Is this really a separate paragraph? Moved.
"Like his predecessors before him." Before him is redundant.
"Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people, who were then in a state of vassalage to the Medes, to revolt, which occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC." This flows awkwardly. The phrase "to revolt" is especially jarring. How about "Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people to revolt against their feudal lords, the Medes. This event, which is corroborated by other historical testimony, occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC." I'm suggesting this additional clause to help distinguish between accepted fact and its legendary trappings; please revise it if it's inaccurate. I changed that paragraph a bit, so it should be more concise now.
"However, it is very likely that both Harpagus and Cyrus rebelled..." "Very likely" seems POV, unless the citation uses those words. How about "likely" instead of "very likely"?
"due to their dissatisfaction with Astyages' policies, rather than the story introduced by Herodotus." Awkwardly worded; it certainly wasn't Herodotus' story that influenced them. Can you find a way to say "rather than the events of the story as related by Herodotus" that isn't clumsy? Patched this up.
"Cyrus led his armies to capture Ecbatana, and effectively conquered the Median Empire." Either remove the comma, or leave the comma but replace "and effectively conquered" with "effectively conquering." This suggestion was effectively conquered in 2006.
"The approximate extent of the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus' rule, superimposed on modern borders. Persia became the largest empire the world had seen yet." Can you make these both complete sentences? Also, "had seen yet" trips me up; how about "had ever seen"? Changed "had seen yet," but I'm not sure how else to write the caption. Got any suggestions?
"Cyrus besieged Croesus in his capital, Sardes." "His" is tricky here, since it could mean Cyrus' or Croesus' capital. It's especially tricky because you've just said that the Lydians attacked the Achaemenid Empire, which implies that the fighting is happening on Cyrus' turf. "The Lydian capital" is better, but not great, since that makes you repeat the word "Lydian" twice in quick succession. Can you think of an alternative wording? Done.
"Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers was to begin." "Was to begin" is redundant. Just say, "Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers, Harpagus advised Cyrus..." Done.
"And indeed, the Lydian cavalry became useless." "And indeed" feels awkward to me. "Became useless" is not strong. How about "The strategy worked; the Lydian cavalry was routed"?
"the Lydian cavalry became useless and Cyrus defeated Croesus at Pterium, captured him, and occupied his capital at Sardis, conquering the Lydian kingdom in 546 BC." Too much info in one sentence. Split this into two sentences. Reworded and split; better now?
"Towards the end of September of 539 BC." The repeated "of" might be a problem. How about "In 539 BC, towards the end of September"? Done.
"defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens." Is "by the citizens" redundant? Who else would have been involved in an uprising? Good point.
"defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens. With Opis under their power, the Persians took control of the vast canal system of Babylonia." Even if you remove "by the citizens," we have a problem with the word "their." It's not clear until later in the sentence that "their" refers to the Persians rather than the citizens or the Babylonians. I know, it's nitpicky, but this will be questioned in FA. How about "Having conquered Opis"? How about "with Opis subjugated?"
"which he had not paid a visit to for several years." "Which he had not visited for years" would be better. Done.
"and soon fled to Babylon, which he had not paid a visit to for several years. (new paragraph) Two days later, on October 12, Gubaru's troops entered the capital, Babylon," How about telling us Babylon is the capital the first time it's mentioned, rather than the second? Done.
I'm not sure about the wikilinks on dates like "October 12." WP:DATE says that you should link month+day, month+day+year, but not years or months alone (unless relevant).
"According to the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great, Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet." That phrase "had seen yet" is still tripping me up. How about "had yet seen" or "had ever seen"? Done.
"At the end of Cyrus' rule, the Achaemenid Empire stretched from Asia Minor and Judah in the west, as far as the Indus River in the east." You've linked "from" to "as far as," and these don't really go together. "From Asia Minor and Judah in the west to the Indus River in the east" is probably the simplest fix. Done.
"Cyrus Cylinder" is an apparent violation of WP:MOS for two reasons: only the first word should be capitalized, and the article title shouldn't appear in a section header. I think this is a legitimate exception, but be prepared to defend this. I'm still not convinced that the "Rise and rule" section shouldn't simply be renamed "Military campaigns," and the "Cyrus Cylinder" information be moved to the Politics subsection of the Legacy section. I don't think proper nouns apply to the heading rule. Regardless, I've moved it to "Politics" and renamed the section as you originally requested. However, I renamed it to "Rise and military campaigns," otherwise the TOC looks strange, jumping from his early life to his military campaigns. In all honesty, I prefer the way it was previously, but I think you're the better judge here.
"Tomyris ordered the body of Cyrus to be found, and then dipped his head in blood to avenge the death of her son at his hands. (new paragraph) He was buried in the city of Pasargadae," There's a small chance of confusion: was it Cyrus or Tomyris' son who was buried? Safer to say "Cyrus was buried." Reworded.
"Cyrus was distinguished equally as a statesman and as a soldier. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, he was able to make his newly conquered subjects into enthusiastic supporters. Due to the stong political infrastructure he created, the Achaemenid empire endured and prospered long after his demise." This is POV unless citations are given, and even then, words like "distinguished," "generosity," "instead of repression," "enthusiastic," "strong," and "prospered" paint a one-sided picture. Surely the man had some weaknesses or detractors? A dissenting view doesn't need equal time or equal weight, but it should get some coverage. I've sourced it and thrown out a few words. If you can find a good dissenting view on Cyrus that can be sourced, I'd be grateful.
"Koresh (Hebrew for Cyrus) is a common name for streets in Israel and is a relatively common Israeli family name." This needs a citation. Also, try to eliminate the weasel wording of "relatively common." Can you give a hard fact to back that up, like "1,500 Israeli families are named 'Koresh'"? I found a source for this statement, but the source doesn't back it up. (80% of all statistics are made up.)
The caption "Cyrus the Great allowing Hebrew pilgrims to return to and rebuild Jerusalem" is not a complete sentence. Changed, but I don't know if it's good enough.
"The Cyropaedia of Xenophon, based on the latter's knowledge of the Great King's upbringing, was an influential political treatise in ancient times, and again during the Renaissance." The fact that the Cyropaedia existed might pass without a citation, but the claim that it was influential needs one. I've changed it to "admired" and gave it a source.
"The English philosopher Sir Thomas Browne named his 1658 discourse after the benevolent ruler. Entitled The Garden of Cyrus, it may well be a Royalist criticism upon the autocratic rule of Oliver Cromwell." "Entitled The Garden of Cyrus" belongs more in the first sentence than the second one. "It may well be" is a weasel word; is it or isn't it? This claim needs a citation. I don't know why I kept that, it was in there since I began editing the article.
I'm not certain, but I think the references are supposed to be alphabetized. By title or author name? Originally they were sorted by print year, but now they're ordered by title.
Nice job on the re-write. I'm really nitpicking at this point. Good luck! Peirigill 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to each of your list items above. And trust me, nitpicking is good. Some of those people over at FA will jump at you for anything. ♠ SG→Talk 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the captions to all but the top image to sentences, and tweaked the captions about the Jews and the Cylinder. (I'm assuming Cyrus didn't do the inscribing himself, which the earlier version implied.) Feel free to revert or modify as you wish. Peirigill 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Well, User:Amizzoni has brought up a couple of issues. Once we get that settled, I'm sending this article straight to FAC. Thanks so much for all your help! ♠ SG→Talk 11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done extensive work on this article and would greatly appreciate some imput as to further improvement. (Thanks) omtay38 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A section on the school's history would be useful. I'm also wary of that School Chest image's use of under-18 students without parental consent. Is that an issue here? --SparqMan 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the history section, i've been looking for information. I didn't think about the image and your probably right. Will remove it now. --omtay38 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The detail on the theaters is great (the new wing finished just after I graduated), but maybe excessive. That section almost dominates the articles, as is. --SparqMan 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, however, I feel rather than removing content from the theatres section, the other sections should have information added to be as detailed as the theatre section. --omtay38 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Suggestions being taken into account! --omtay38 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) There should be a References or Notes section instead of just external links. 2) History should be before Campus. 3) Notable student organizations should be added into a Student Life section and combined with Annual activities. 4) Notable alumni not nearly comprehensive enough. Students section should be renamed like Profile or something. 5) All sections need major expansion. See Stuyvesant High School and Plano Senior High School. -Bluedog423 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I finished renovating this article and hope to nominate it to featured article status. However, I'm not sure if it's good enough to nominate. Please provide any comments. Thank you --Aleenf1 07:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aleen. I have taken the liberty of moving the Badminton item from the Biography section to the Unclassified section. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 09:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is yet good enough to nominate. A distinct weakness is the list of strokes; I've expanded this and intend to add an accompanying tactical context section, and possibly a section about advanced strokes/skills. Some more thought needs to go into the structure of the article too (what information goes where), and whether the article should be split into separate articles. --Mike Hopley 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that some of the article needs to be rewritten for clarity and concision. --Mike Hopley 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the present form it is not good enough to nominate for FA status. There is a lot of good information but it is let down by poor writing and balance. It needs copyediting throughout.
Some quick comments:
Introduction should ideally summarize the whole article, not just the rules
'General description' section is unnecessary - it covers informmation that is covered in more depth in the rest of the article. This should be summarized in the introduction and dropped.
Style could do with some tweaking, there are examples of odd phrasing throughout. A quick selection:
'Badminton champion Fu Haifeng' - either say what he is champion of or leave it out
'Badminton is often compared to tennis' - 'contrasted' would be better here as that is what the rest of the paragraph does (although you have already compared the equipment in the preceding paragraph)
'The traditional scoring system in badminton history involves 15 points' - 'traditional' is fine, no need to add 'history', 'involves' is a strange choice.
'or called "setting".' - what?
'The pair will serve the shuttlecock like singles rules which base to their points' - what?
'Badminton shoes need a gummy soles for good grip' - or a shoe need a gummy sole?
The 'Playing rules' section appears to have been written by a non-native speaker - it needs a copyedit
Units of measurement - sometimes you use metric, sometimes imperial, sometimes both. Standardize on one and then quote the other in brackets after it. You can use the standard abbreviations rather than spelling it out each time, and the manual of style recommends inserting an non-breaking space between values and units
'This system was abandoned later' and 'later also replaced' - surely there are dates for these.
'Badminton racquets, in conjunction with hockey sticks, are also used in the lesser-known “sport” of Bee-Whacking.' looks like subtle vandalism
Strokes - would benefit from some diagrams
Strategy - re-covers some info from the strokes section (i.e. smash is redescribed in the second sentence)
As a personal preference I'd like to see more inline citations.
Hope this helps. Yomangani 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}