Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smack (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 8 December 2003 (re: cytomegalovirus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is a forum for getting comments and peer review from other Wikipedians on Wikipedia articles or on other content related to Wikipedia articles (such as images or other content to be inserted into articles). Use this page to post links to articles or images that you would like comments and peer review on.

For comments on policies, other users, technology, and other miscellaneous concerns that are not directly related to reviewing article content, use the wikipedia:village pump.

Using this page

  • List new requests at the bottom, with a heading above them, like this: == New Topic ==
  • Include a link to the item you would like comments or peer review on.
  • Include in your request a brief description of what you're seeking comments about. This helps other Wikipedians to decide whether they're interested in making comments.
  • Include a link to a talk page of some kind where the actual comments and peer review will take place. Please do not use this page for actual discussion.
  • On the talk page you are linking to, please give some brief background information so commentators do not have to read mountains of discussion before making useful comments.
  • Please sign your request with your username using four tildes: ~~~~

Here is a suggested format for posting new items here. Feel free to adapt it to your particular purposes:

Item name

Remove links from this list after topics have received attention, after they have been here for a while, or, if you posted the request, after you've received all the comments you're interested in receiving. Add this page to your watchlist if you like to make comments and want to be notified of anything needing commentary.


We Didn't Start the Fire

I know that generally we don't want pages on songs with lyrics listed, but have a look at what I've done with Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire. It needs work (not all the links are right - perhaps an American might have more insight), but I think it's a great starting point for browsing. CGS 17:16, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC).

I like the page, but I'm still worried whether it is ok from a copyright perspective. Andre Engels 09:43, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's a great article, but I believe it is a copyright violation, unfortunately. I have listed it as such. You could try getting permission for the article from the copyright owner. Daniel Quinlan 06:40, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Logan's Run

Has anyone read Logan's Run? If so, take a look and what I've done. It's ages since I read it, but I've been bold and put down what I could. Cgs

responses moved to Talk:Logan's Run

Automated wikipediholic test

Since Angela took down her automated version of the Are You a Wikipediholic Test, I thought I'd have a go at making one. Please check it out, especially people who don't use Mozilla. Thanks, Merphant 05:56, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Works in both Mozilla 1.4 and IE6. Good work Merphant. I'm glad I don't I have to bother fixing the Mozilla bug in my old one now.:) Angela 17:41, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)
404 Not Found?? --Geoffrey 22:36, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Apparently people.ucsc.edu is broken; I can't access anybody's web page from that server anymore either. I'll contact the webmaster and post a note here when it's fixed. -- Merphant 08:34, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ok, it's back up. -- Merphant 01:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In case it goes down again, I've mirrored it at http://angela.fused.org/wikitest.htm. Angela 21:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Kosovo War

This article (Kosovo war) has been bothering me for a long time. It is perhaps the least NPOV article I have come across on the entire wikipedia. The article is written almost entirely from a Serb viewpoint, the tone of the article is entirely condemnatory of Albanians/NATO as is the content. I've been hoping that someone with more knowledge of the subject than I could attempt a serious NPOVing and balancing of this article. As it presently stands it is a dark blot on the wikipedia. What does everyone else think of this article or what should be done about it. G-Man 18:23, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Nathanael West

I naively left something on the talk page for the Nathanael West entry that this is going to duplicate: I did the best I could from what I could find, but information is contradictory and insufficient. The best that can be said is that people looking for information on this author from Wikipedia are no longer going to have to go away completely empty-handed.

Homicide bombing

It contains a lot of information POV'ed info (when Wik reverts it), ignoring other factual part of the term. It leaves out information which is not particularly difficult to verify. It is being reverted constantly by Wik who is known to write POV'ed on this topic. I have strived to include the comments by him, but to no avail, could someone please peer review the article (and check the history and the talk pages) reddi 01:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A strange reversal of the facts. I describe "homicide bombing" correctly as a POV term for suicide bombing, while Reddi describes it as if it were an objective term (and earlier tried to call "suicide bombing" a "neologism", which already led the suicide bombing article to be protected). His persistent POV editing (also in Current events) amounts to vandalism in my opinion. Any sysop reading this, please protect Homicide bombing. I guess both pages will just have to be protected until Reddi either agrees to change his behaviour or is banned. --Wik 01:44, Sep 26, 2003 (UTC)
From a strictly semantic point of view, I think that suicide bombing is the correct term. Any bombing of the more conventional types - i.e. shelling and airstrikes - can be termed a homicide if the speaker is a sufficiently outspoken pacifist. The word suicide, on the other hand, uniquely identifies it as an act of utter desperation, to which people resort when the steady barrage of ostensibly religious propaganda turns people into driver ants. (Well, maybe it doesn't have quite that much meaning, but I hope you'll excuse my fit of eloquence.) -Smack 05:13, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Infidelity

Someone linked a sexuality-related article to infidelity, but there was nothing there, so I wrote something. Unfortunately, I wrote it in the throes of mild jealousy, so it may be a touch tear-stained. Also, being straight and not poly, I might have given short shrift to those perspectives, especially the latter. --Shana tova, Calieber 14:28, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Request for review of PMs of UK

I believe the page at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is just wrong. My book disagrees, as does http://www.btinternet.com/~spansoft/data/tl_brpm.txt -- both of my sources agree with one another. In particular, take a look at the dates regarding Pitt the Elder and Lord Bute. (1757) LirQ

Suez Crisis

The most recent edit to the Suez Crisis as I write looks very dubious. Diff here. Could a knowledgable person set my mind at rest and revert this if necessary? Pete 09:23, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Taken care of. -- Viajero 10:28, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Korean and Japanese help

List of company name etymologies - I've recently added some entries for Japanese and Korean electronic and automobile companies. Would anyone who is knowledgeable in these languages check out if the literal translations for some of the names are accurate, and suggest if anything else needs to be added. Jay 18:07, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just had a look at the Korean ones. They seem OK. Kokiri 01:19, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about solid-fuel stoves?

I just finished a massive edit on portable stove. In the process, I carved up some pre-existing content about solid-fuel stoves. That content had been added by a single user. My intent was to message that user and get him/her to correct my work, but that user (Kat) has since left the wiki. So consider this a cry for help. The article's coverage of solid-fuel stoves is in very bad shape. It had been interspersed throughout the article until my restructuring effort, and it looked fine in that capacity, but now that I brought it together, it's rather subpar. -Smack 01:57, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Neutral text

I don't think this quite rises to the level of problem of an NPOV dispute or an edit war, but I'd like someone (or multiple someones) to look at the following two paragraphs from Rush Limbaugh (initially, without looking at the edit history and discussion) and take a gander at which is more successful at being neutral.

In September 2001, Limbaugh denied suggestions that his voice and diction had changed. However, on October 8, 2001, he admitted that the changes in his voice were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. Rush also revealed that his radio staff was aiding him in concealing his rapidly progressing hearing loss and subsequent deafness by setting up a system where Rush could maintain a conversation with callers. Some listeners could discern the change, especially after Rush was unable to hear callers, sometimes a longer delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding, and sometimes he would seem to accidentally talk over a caller. Some critics of Rush contend that this episode and his month-long concealment of his deafness constitutes a lie. Most listeners of Rush do not feel that way.
By September 2001, Limbaugh's listeners had noted changes in his voice and diction, changes that Limbaugh initially denied. However, on October 8, 2001, he reversed himself, admitting that the changes in his voice were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. Rush also revealed that his radio staff was aiding him in concealing his rapidly progressing hearing loss by setting up a system where Rush could appear to hear his callers. The system worked remarkably well, but did not deceive all listeners, some of whom noted a long delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding, and Rush occasionally speaking over a caller. Some critics of Rush contend that this episode and his month-long concealment of his deafness constitutes a lie. Most listeners of Rush do not feel that way.

Thanks. Daniel Quinlan 07:21, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

The first two sentences (of either version) are fine. From my scarcely-know-who-this-man-is perspective, everything after that is so vanishingly trivial as to no be worth keeping. -- Finlay McWalter 00:00, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Map of Manila

I would like comments on this map of Manila. Does it look to cluttered? Should I enlarge it so that the text doesn't look too blurry (but would require scrolling on 1024x768 screens)? Are there any typos? How can it be improved? Thanks! --seav 16:10, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)



Herbs and Spices Template

If anyone has a few seconds, I'd like you to check out my new WikiProject for Herbs and Spices. I'd like to make a consistent template for Herb and Spice articles. This Wikipedia:WikiProject Herbs and Spices aims primarily to provide a consistent article structure for herbs and spices articles so that Wikipedia can become the true online spice bible, since most web sources out there are very scattered and there is no one true free source...many of them say different things depending upon the nationality and experience of the author, and other factors. Eventually this comprehensive information could all move over to the Wikibook:Cookbook. The template is available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Herbs and Spices/Template and I'd appreciate anyone's improvements to it...I'm sure everyone knows about spices, if you were looking up a spice, what would want to find out about it?

The reason I am asking is that I'd like to get started on this soon, so I want to make sure I didn't forget any key things in the template. dave 03:46, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sounds and looks brilliant, I had a quick look. Perhaps a quick-reference table at the top right, similar to the taxbox in evolutionary tree articles, or the similar tables in dog breed articles and chemical elements? A photo of the source of the spice could be included at the top of this table. Looking forward to seeing the content, I may even be able to contribute a little. Andrewa 04:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Mao suit

Different sources are telling me very different things about the origins of the Mao suit (I elaborate at Talk:Mao suit; please comment there.) --Jiang 00:51, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


The Plague Dogs article

Hello, I am new here on the Wikipedia and I wrote an article about The book The Plague Dogs by Richard adams, could anybody add something to it 'cause it's not very complete yet... Oca 13:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I know that Muriel referred you here, but I would say that you shouldn't post requests here unless you have exhausted your knowledge of the topic and find that the article is still missing something very important. If every wikipedist called for help on every article that he or she made a major contribution to, this page would get out of control. For our policy on writing about fictional works, see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Go ahead and finish that article. (By the way, please don't take my suggestions to discourage you. We all make mistakes, even when we have a little experience.) One more thing - according to Richard Adams, it's his third novel, not his second. -Smack 01:39, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know, but that's fine, But I really think something's missing in the summary and I don't know enough about the book to add that...Oca 10:06, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

PiFast

Hi,

I just created a new article for PiFast, a freeware program to compute digits of pi. As this is one of maybe five or six articles I've ever written from scratch, I'd be interested in advice - especially which words to make into wikilinks. Feel free to comment on the article's talk page, which I'm watchlisting, or my user talk page.

Thanks! -- Pakaran 21:52, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Seems like an advertisement. Is it your own program? It also seems like a useless article, sorry to be critical, but it's just a feature list for a relatively unknown program. Daniel Quinlan 06:36, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
I think it deserves an article, but I'm focusing my time elsewhere now. And no, I didn't write it, and am not involved with it. I just felt it deserved an article. -- Pakaran 19:11, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Irish poetry

  • Irish poetry
  • Talk:Irish poetry
  • Just finished working on this page and I'd like some comments because:
    • At about 3,500 words it still seems very selective
    • It needs another pair of eyes to proofread
    • There are loads of wikis leading to pages that do not yet exist
    • Although I've tried, I cannot be sure that it is NPOV

All comments welcome. Bmills 11:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

National emblem

National emblem -- I've asked a few questions on its talk page 7 days back but got no responses. Probably not many have got it on their watchlist. The article lists the National Tree, National Animal, National Plant, National Flower, etc. of countries. I was under the impression that a National Emblem is distinct and separate from a nation's other symbols. So the basic question is : can a country have more than one national emblem ? And where can I get more info on this? Please visit Talk:National emblem and refer the first discussion. Jay 09:16, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cytomegalovirus

  • Item: Cytomegalovirus
  • Talk: Talk:Cytomegalovirus
  • Description: I've just posted a major revision to this entry, taken pretty much verbatim from a document from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is my first major post. I assume the source to be reliable. But two major questions I'd appreciate comments and/or editing on:
  1. Are such documents from the CDC truly public domain?
  2. Is this correctly written? Is it encyclopedic? Is it NPOV.
  • Posted by: Rholton 20:51, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The U.S. government is listed on Wikipedia:Public domain resources. There is a caveat or two, so check that page for more information. Unless CMV also has significant effects on animals, you should remove the heading ==CMV in humans== and upgrade all subsequent headings as appropriate. More importantly, some separation should probably be made between descriptive content and lists of advice. People are generally averse to having instructive content on the wiki. I think that this is a case where it can stay, but only if it's separated out into a section of its own. -Smack 19:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tubular pin tumbler lock

  • Item: Tubular pin tumbler lock
  • Talk: Talk:Tubular pin tumbler lock or User talk:Wapcaplet
  • Description: New article without much content; however, the illustrations are what I'm most interested in feedback on. I am not a locksmith, and I have found no good reference on what the inside of a tubular pin tumbler actually looks like. If anyone is familiar with them, I'd greatly appreciate comments on whether I got the illustrations right.
  • Posted by: Wapcaplet 21:07, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hackers (short stories)

Bio-inspired computing

  • Item: Bio-inspired computing
  • Talk: Talk:Bio-inspired computing or User talk:Chopchopwhitey
  • Description: I created a new article describing bio-inspired computing, an academic field closely related to artificial intelligence. I'd appreciate any and all feedback--most importantly an objective viewpoint checking I haven't talked it up too much, as I find it very interesting! Any ideas, comments and contributions at all appreciated--it is still far from finished.
  • Posted by: Chopchopwhitey 06:49, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Music of Jamaica

  • Music of Jamaica
    • It's a really major subject, as Jamaica is easily a rival for the UK and US in terms of popular music worldwide, and is a #4 Google hit. Doesn't really flow too well in parts, and needs expansion, especially on the last fifteen years or so. Tuf-Kat 06:58, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Ackermann function

(moved from Village Pump at 2:52 EST by User:Pakaran)

Hi,

I added a table to that article. It was based on another table (which I link to) but it shouldn't be a copyvio because I just copied the numbers (and to some extent the format). I could have generated my own table, or typed in the values from scratch, in a bit more time. Is my editorial comment at the bottom of the table section appropriate? I guess I have a sense of awe towards the function that's proving quite hard to get rid of, and it shows in the article.

On another note - I mentioned in the talk page that NIST has their own version of the Ackermann function - which seems incompatible with ours, and which does not appear anywhere else on the web. Are they just plain wrong?

Thanks! -- Pakaran 04:46, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Update: I added a lot of content to the article, and I have been informed that there is no copyvio issue. I'd be interested in comments. -- Pakaran 06:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just in case you are not aware of it Wikipedia:Peer review is another place to ask for comments ... it seems to be on plenty of people's watchlists. (Probably not as many as the mighty VP though!) Pete 10:15, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'd already computed some of the numbers and put them on the talk page, based on the definition already in the article, so I doubt the numbers themselves could somehow in any way be copyrighted by some other site... Κσυπ Cyp   12:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Cyp. Yeah, I doubt that's any longer a concern. I'm interested in re view of my comments on the asymptotic behavior of naive attempts to compute the function. Thanks. -- Pakaran 05:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on article about "Race"

Two authors of this article have used the hammer of reversion to thwart efforts by various people to eliminate the single-POV bias of several parts of the article. This is documented fairly well in the Talk pages (plural because part of the discussion has been archived). Being something of a newcomer, I'm not sure what can be done, especially as I do not wish to start a "reversion war." I have never reverted anyone's work, and in fact I adhered to Wiki protocol by offering additions and the smallest modifications possible. Newcomers are asked to be optimists, so any suggestions or advice would be appreciated.

To save you wading through the edit history and the Talk page, here is a summary of one of the POV issues -- the single-POV taken in the first sentence of the article (as of 02:33, 1 Dec 2003, which is a reversion by the person who will not allow a more neutral POV version to be used). This first sentence reads as follows:

Race is a taxonomic principle used to group living things based on common heredity, physical attributes and behavior, where all members belong to the same species yet appear to warrant further classification.

As explained in the Talk page, there are several problems with this sentence. Here, let's just consider the first five words.

1) There are multiple points of view about what "race" is. Any dictionary will tell you there is more than one meaning related to human classification. To say it is a 'taxonomic principle' is just one POV. Other points of view include: 

  a) "Race is a folk taxonomic concept..." (this was the phrasing used
      in the revision of 15:19, 8 Jan 2002)
  b) "Race is a social construct."
  c) "Race has several meanings related to classification. These meanings
      vary depending on whether the classification is based on scientific
      criteria, self-identification, interviewer opinion, or some other
      critera; on whether the categories are created so as to be
      mutually exclusive or not; and on whether the criteria used in
      defining the categories are based on ancestry, genetics, physical
      characteristics, behavioral criteria, or some combination of these."
  d) Scientists have attempted to apply taxonomic principles to identify
      different "races".
  e) "Race does not exist."

Consider, for example, OMB Statistical Directive 15, October 30, 1997. It states:

"The categories in this classification [i.e. race and ethnicity] are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. ... Respondents shall be offered the option of selecting one or more racial designations. Recommended forms for the instruction accompanying the multiple response question are "Mark one or more" and "Select one or more." (See e.g. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race06.htm)

Needless to say, this POV should not simply be ignored or denied in the Wiki article on race.

2) Does starting an article with the words 'Race is a taxonomic principle' help clarify things or merely muddy the waters? As documented in the Talk page, there are several POVs about what the word 'taxonomic' might signify here, as well as what the word 'principle' might signify here.

By the way, the original characterization of race in this Wikipedia article was much better (from a POV perspective) than the current formula, as were several subsequent revisions. Here is the original version:

(2001): "Race is a concept used to divide people into groups ..."

Peak 05:32, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please insert the links to Race and Talk:Race into the beginning of your description. I am under the impression that race as a taxonomic concept is somewhat distinct from race as an ethnic concept. The article does not address this, but that may just be because I'm wrong. -Smack 06:04, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

List of People by Known IQ

Does this article List of People by Known IQ have any merit in Wikipedia? I'm of two minds on this one -- it seems an interesting list, but given the shaky credibility of "IQ" as a metric and the verifiability of these numbers, I'm not sure. Put it here instead of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, in order to make "inclusionists" happy. :) Fuzheado 08:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I concur. IMO, it doesnt deserve to stand as a single article. The list may be given as a "trivia" item at the bottom of the IQ page. Considering that not many articles link to the list presently, this is the easiest solution. chance 07:16, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Ramón Serrano Suñer

I recently did a lot of expanding on the article by adding a lot of biographical facts, and I was wondering if the article was now as exhaustive as it could be. Does anyone who's knowledgeable on the subject know if there's anything missing? Some fact double-checking would be nice, too. Wiwaxia 11:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Flag

I was wondering if the experienced Wikipedians would please review my recent article on Flags. I ended up rewriting it almost from scratch in order to make it flow better and include some important new facts; I also attempted to include all of the existing material in the new article as well. I'm new enough to this project that I do not have a user name as yet, but may be interested in getting one if my material is considered "up to snuff" (and if I can rediscover the page that allows me to do so...) I also requested feedback on the Talk page. Thanks in advance for your time and opinions! - Steve

Most excellent article. I've made a couple of cosmetic changes to the tail end of it, and it might be reasonable to put the "Alternate meanings" section at the beginning, but it's better than most of the stuff we've got. Please do register. If you do, you will have a "watchlist" that you can set up in no time flat to automatically monitor changes to that article. -Smack 18:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

List of Royal Titles of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

If anyone would like to take a look at this and see if it's written in the correct style, it'd be a great help. -- Chrism 17:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review&oldid=1907347"