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.
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.
(1st peer review)
The article has been identified as a good article, however it has failed the FA nominations. I want to know what it lacks. Perhaps a better grammar, thing that I am unable to give due to not being a native speaker. That has been the major objection. Please make suggestions, I would thank you very much for your help. Afonso Silva22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's introductory paragraphs needs a lot of TLC, including some dates, reorganization and a few phrases that explain terms. I'd also mention the PIDE in conjunction with the 'repression' of the party in the '33-74 (I infer) timeframe, but also ommisions like the name of the Estado Novo regime lead to a sense of weak article. (i.e. Strong Intro implies strong article. This one is not strong. It needs a lot more text to glue the buzz words and titles into something that can serve as a synopsis of the whole. This bareboned effort is no where even close to accomplishing that.)
I'd guess the current placement of the Principles and internal organization section means that 'most of the article' never gets read! As is, the article probably looses the interest of most any reader in the 'Principles Section', which I'd recommend as a sub-page and both subsections as something to be moved much lower in the article. Idealistic lists like that make dry reading no matter where you put them, so I'd go with the sub-page, but move it's organization subsection as the main prose (organizing and anchoring the sub-page) to very late in the article (5th or 6th section).
Bringing an example or two of the 'repressions' the party endured plus a little about it's resurgence in '74-75 into the article top would probably be advisible to generate interest to continue reading further to most readers, including some mention of it's current prominence or lack thereof.
Inasmuch as the "Authoritarian" (That word should be used appropriately in the introduction) repressing regime was one of the last European authoratarian governments, and that the revolution in '74 was virtually bloodless(!), I'd suggest you work those in early, almost certainly, into the introduction as well as other such 'hook' (sympathy garnering) factoids, such as the fact that the party champions universal education of the working class which the regime opposed, etc.
All that will take a lot of effort to remain NPOV, but as is, there is no 'momentum' to help the reader to want to read on in a dry topic (No 'Narrative SNAP')... something hard to accomplish in any long writing, but I believe necessary for FA status.
I can't venture an opinion whether the primarily English speaking readers (of Wiki) personal beliefs (and consequent cultural bias away from anything socialist or communist) would affect it's chances, but you might want to bear that intangible reality in mind if additional work fails to bear fruit. The connotations of either of those two words here in America are rarely if ever posative. Well, excepting perhaps Ted Kennedy. ~:)
I strongly agree with some of FrankB's suggestions, as well as the suggestion made by Maclean25. Here are my suggestions:
I would put the "principles and and internal organization" section after the history section, or, as Fabartus suggests, even later in the article.
See if you can shorten the introductory paragraphs.
I would eliminate the tables in the electoral results section. Instead, I would replace them with short verbal summaries of the results and of long-term trends (e.g., the PCP seems to be enjoying less electoral success in the last few elections). You could put the electoral results section in a separate article (titled something like "Electoral results of the Portuguese Communist Party").
I agree with Maclean25 that the history section should be shortened.
I understand there is no separate peer review for portals and since there is now a featured portal thing, so I thought I'd ask here. Any suggestions/comments for improving this portal and elevating to featured status.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanna say that the people who are working towards the goal of getting featured status have done a wonderful, great job! I don't see anything worth nit-picking or needing fixing, but I don't know much about featured portals. Wonderful effort and teamwork! Rama's Arrow05:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, increasing the lead text to fill the entire box would be great. I thought a bit about it, but I'm not skillful enough to add a few sentences that will do justice to introducing India in its entirety. But someone must do this before we nominate the portal for featured status. deeptrivia (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I filled the entire box. I think the display depends on the resolution of your monitor. I'm working on a 1024x768 screen; your results may vary on a 800x600 screen. AreJay03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One noticaable thing in the portal: The page format changes automatically, even if it is being protected, the page would be ineffective. All the sections are being covered with templates, so for any editing there is need to edit templates only. That's a great thing and I want to add that it should be protected in future. I think it has all features what should be there in a featured portal. Shyam(T/C)22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. Only suggestion that I have is to consider making "Tasks you can do" section stand out by using a different font for the header maybe. Another small issue is the color scheme. It is really generic and safe. I would have really liked to see the flag colors or atleast some "Indian" colors as it is a big part of the culture. For instance, you can find shades of green and orange that could work well. It would give it more personality.--Blacksun19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has improved a lot in the last month, most notably with the inclusion of a lot of relevant images, very detailed references for almost all the facts quoted, and standard sections as per country pages. The language has also been NPOVized to a great extent. So, I think we can move this into FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear other people's opninions in avenues for improvement. Thanks. --Ragib05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining point, IMO, is reducing size from 49kb to lower 40s, which is a reasonable figure for articles on nations. Rama's Arrow 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) -> Done , size now 46KB, which should be ok --Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, given the high level of referencing in this article, this advice is rather arbitrary and/or infeasible — as long as the article stays on topic and summary style is used, arbitrary length cutoffs shouldn't matter (FAC objections based on such cutoffs have been repeatedly over-ruled by the FAC Director — see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia for just one great example). Also, note that this article is 37kb when only the "References" and "External links" sections are cut out — this is much less than the 44kb Australia. Saravask23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please check that there is no glaring difference between the account of the Bangladesh Liberation War/genocide in the Pakistan article and this one - Pakistan is also prepping for FAC. Rama's Arrow 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC) ->Actually, Pakistan's page describes it in one sentence in the history section and the text in this article is just an elaboration. Since Bangladeshi history starts at this point, an elaborated treatment of the war in a whole paragraph is needed, and done here in a crisp, brief manner.--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name of Bangladesh in the Bengali script sounds like bangladashe(the Bengali script is a perpetual problem). Also, the map in the infobox is not correct.The green patch depicting Bangladesh in the infobox map appears to have skewed to the left.
The portion where the highest point in Bangladesh is described (in Geography and Climate section) appears somewhat confusing, it takes time to make out what the writer is trying to say.--Dwaipayanc05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bangla script problem is actually a client side issue ... it happens with all indic scripts. Actually, this is correctly rendered in a unicode enabled browser. I assume that you are looking into it from Firefox/XP. In any case, to view unicode Bangla text correctly, that indic text support needs to be enabled in Windows XP. The text renders correctly in IE, and also Linux/Firefox and other browsers.
I agree that the highest point is debated. Keokeradong was always thought to be so, but a satellite survey about 2 years ago showed that's not correct. But whatever that is, I agree that the text should reflect that clearly. Thanks for the observation. --Ragib06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree abt the genocide part, there is need to be careful there. Also, a previous review mentioned the lack of attention given to Ershad, which still remains a problem.--ppm05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cultural section needs a lot of work. Some of the prose is South Asian English, not English English, and some of the sentences are clumsy. Frex, "Contemporary Bangladesh keeps producing a substantial amount of litearture of all forms." That makes literature sound like the jute harvest. It would be better to say something about the number of newspapers, magazines, and books published, literacy, readership, and perhaps to mention the names of some well-known contemporary writers. Is there an article on Bengali literature?
The history section contains a lurid sentence which runs something like "Rape of Bangladesh was one of the worst genoicides in history, as bad as the genoicide in Cambodia" and there's a link to an emotional website. It was horrible, inexcusable, vile ... I hadn't realized that it was so terrible ... and I shudder to think that the perpetrators are still living at their ease. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cambodia, where Pol Pot managed to kill 25% of the population. The West Pakistanis didn't manage that in Bangladesh. Now perhaps "bad" is measured by population numbers, but that's a clumsy scale to use ... wiping out 100% of an Amazon tribe of 1000 people would seem "less bad" than killing 2000 people out of a population of 10,000,000. Perhaps you should leave out the judgements about more or less bad and just present the facts ... that's horrifying enough.
There is an article on Bangla literature, which last time I checked was a copy of the relevant portion in the entry Bangla. In general, increasing culture makes the article longer, specially when we are already missing art and architecture there. Maybe we should shorten history?--ppm06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be written in summary form and you would need to trim about ~5 kb of content.
Article needs a copyedit (->Does it still need it? we've tried to go through every error, so how is it now?--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Please don't compare the country with another (Greece). It needs to be a summary of the article. (Done--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
At the bottom of the article is a table on Holidays which virtually replicates the page on Public holidays in Bangladesh. One of the two tables should be removed - probably the one on the main article - and the information merged into the last paragraph of the Culture section which mentions Eid. Green Giant 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (Done--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Just something I noticed right away were three links in the middle of the history section that need to be converted into references or something. Looking at the page in the printable version makes the section look ugly with the URLs present in the paragraph as opposed to at the bottom like the references. Pepsidrinka04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed them to refs/notes format. I couldn't notice them in the normal view ... the printable view suggestion is great indeed. Thanks. --Ragib08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about the references; try keeping a consistent pattern with regards to the punctuation. I don't know if there is correct format, but have the references preceding the punctuations (e.g., commas and periods) or have them after them. Right now, some of the references come after a period and others come before a comma, it just looks un-professional. Pepsidrinka04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Good amount of content. Two quick points now, I'll add more later.
The article needs a copyedit to bring a better tone and style. For example, the second paragraph in the lead, just uses the words "east" and "west" to refer to East Pakistan and West Pakistan respectively. It has phrases like "ruled by the west" that need clarification. (Done--Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
A page representing the highest wiki-tradition, a truly encyclopedic page, The page has all the ingredients to migrate to the status of a featured page. It is really heartening to note that as of now the page has no redlinks, as such the user shall have the luxury to dig deep into the contents covered in this page. I am re- reading the page very carefully, and shall surely come back with more comments, if required. --Bhadani08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only red link in Bangladesh now in Khanjan.I don't know what is that. Please try to make it blue! And as you guys have already discussed in the Bangladesh talk page, the article would be splendid with some more photos, especially on the cultural aspect. A photo of a rice field with farmers is so much representative of our mental picture of gram bangla (the rural Bengal). Have you thought about adding something on Transport/ communication in Bangladesh? The picture of that long bridge over Jamuna will be excellent.Bye.--Dwaipayanc19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the "Education" section should stay. Also, given the quality of this article right now, it should be put up at FAC immediately, so that more critique would be available. Other than that, minor issues: "$" should be converted to "USD" or "US$", non-breaking spaces ( ) and – need to be used consistently. This looks great — good luck. Saravask23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with Saravask. Bangladesh should be put up at FAC ASAP.The article is great. If you see this FA you will see so many red links and a lack of photos.Compared to that and other FA like This Charming Man, Bangladesh is already superior, though potentially more controversial especially in the history section.Putting up for FAC will attract more critique than this peer review and faults, if any, can be mended quickly. Please go for FAC. Bye.--Dwaipayanc09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good except the subdivisions section. The problem is the main article links break up the prose and make for very short, choppy sentences. Consider merging that section with politics too. - TaxmanTalk21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article right now? I've commented in bold replies to most of the points raised above, so please take a look and let me know. Thanks. --Ragib03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. You have my vote at the FAC. It could help with a mild copyedit. I'll try doing some if I find time. On random inspection, I found two things that need fixing.
I added a reference for this statement. It's not widely disputed anyway (as opossed to numbers killed), numbers vary only from 8-10 million--ppm03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to see something about the disputes over illegal immigration from Bangladesh into India in the article - there are large numbers of Bangladeshis in India, legal and illegal, and also many going to Pakistan. Rama's Arrow19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but the article India does not have anything on this issue. If it's not an important enough topic in the India article, why is it crucial here?--ppm02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are an estimated 10 - 15 million Bangladeshis in India as a result of systematic illegal immigration, obviously its something relevant and important to Bangladesh. India has some lines on its expatriate community, but the illegal immigration problem from Bangladesh is not characteristic to India (while it is to Bangladesh, as these people are its citizens). Please note that 15 million would make roughly 10% of the present population, so I think you can't really ignore this. Rama's Arrow15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find a reference. In any case, we must be careful not to depict other South Asian countries in India's terms.--ppm03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
okay i added a sentence in demographics covering this, along with more important immigration/refugee problems that concern Bangladesh--ppm22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some major edits to the page including copyediting. A few red links are introduced, it should be made blue, 1 citation needed, and the highest point mentioned. I've removed the =Education= section as per the Wikiproject countries which does not list it. I've also merged =sports= under culture and pruned away victories over Pakistan etc. The only thing remaining is the =History= section. Up till this point in 1966, its president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was jailed and in 1969 was released after unprecedented popular uprising. the section is well summarised, but after that it becomes too detailed. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»= 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
(citation and highest point provided--ppm05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The first map, which was previously quite deformed as Dwaipayanc noted, is now fixed. I think (unfortunately, in a somewhat biased way) that this is now ready for FAC. One particularly good thing about this article is that it's throughly fact-checked and footnotes are used extensively. Sheehan (Talk) 08:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has undergone significant editing and revision in the last five months. I believe the main objections have been rectified and this article is very ready to go through the FA process again. --Chevan02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My first suggestion would be to go over to recommendations through the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project. I noted that a review has been made of the page, and I agree with the suggestions. Just about all the new FAC music articles have some sort of sound sample. As well, the FMP noted there were no outside references, i.e. books, referenced in the article, although Van Halen has had numerous biographies, official magazines, and music entries over the years.
Personally, I think the article is a bit wordy, and at times sounds more like a "VH1 Behind the Music" special than an encyclopedia entry. Some examples, "The commercial success that Van Halen reached with Sammy Hagar set high expectations — and fans everywhere were watching and waiting for the band's next move" sounds odd. "By 1980, Van Halen was perhaps the world's most successful and influential hard rock band" sets yourself up for arguments by fans of Led Zep, AC/DC, and others who might feel there were other more successful and influential hard rock bands. Similar unsourced opinions slip through the article, like "5150 is generally considered the strongest album of the "Hagar era." and "A left over track entitled "That's Why I Love You" found its way onto the internet, leaving fans to wonder why it didn't make the album." are two other quick examples, although there are others. Also, the article is very wordy, i.e., "By September, however, David Lee Roth and the rest of the band were asked to present an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards. On September 4, 1996, the four original members of Van Halen made their first public appearance together in over eleven years, presenting an award at the 1996 MTV Video Music Awards." Essentially, both sentences repeat the same thing.
I think that the article is there information-wise, but the writing needs a complete copyedit. Work on eliminating duplicate words, opinions, and POV. Otherwise, an informative article on a major rock influence.
Message me on my talk page if you wish for me to highlight specific concerns with the article, and I'll review it with a fine toothcomb. LuciferMorgan00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first peer review for this article back in November (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Mariah Carey/archive1) was very helpful, but I've very recently performed a major rewrite of the article. I've tried to insert more reliable and print-based references, expand the information on Carey's musical style and influences, balance the critical appraisal with quotes and paraphrasing from Carey herself, and generally improve the prose. It's somewhat more detailed than previously, but I think that the new material is worth including. I'm considering taking it to WP:FAC, so I was wondering if people think that it's ready and what could be done to improve it. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine00:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has expanded considerably and adheres to certain qualities. Although I'm not a fan of her music (well, except for one song), here are some suggestions:
If there are any redirects, make sure to correct them.
Could you include an inline citation for what made Carey's rise to prominence a "Cinderella story"?
After marrying Mottola in 1993, hit ballads such as "Hero" and "One Sweet Day" consolidated her position as one of Columbia's most successful acts. — this sentence may be changed often; various fans of Carey's may change "Hero" to "Dreamlover" or "One Sweet Day" to "Forever". Perhaps the albums Music Box and Daydream should be placed there instead?
Image:Dont4getaboutus.jpeg includes a logo; this is generally frowned upon despite being passable. Perhaps the logo should be cut?
Consider creating articles for all red links, although this is not necessary.
Carey made a notorious appearance on MTV's Total Request Live, where she handed out popsicles to the teen-aged audience and began what was later described as a "strip tease". — how was it notorious?
I dislike the word "hit" proceeding "number-one". For example, ...Carey the only act to have a number-one hit in each year of the 1990s. Consider using just "number-one" or "number-one success". However, I prefer the former.
The majority of featured articles on music artists contain a couple of samples.
I checked the links as I inserted them, as well as a lot of the already-present ones, but apologies if I missed any.
Inline citation added (to an article titled, coincidentially, "Cinderella Story").
All mentions of albums and singles in the lead have been removed per yourself and user:Rossrs below, so I don't think it will be a problem anymore.
I searched everywhere I could think of, and I couldn't find screencaps from the "Don't Forget About Us" video that didn't include a logo from a television channel.
I'll see what I can do with the redlinks.
"Notorious" removed.
Well, in other discussions I haven't heard anybody else say that they think don't the phrase "number-one hit" should be used, but I wouldn't mind if they were to be edited as such. I'm indifferent.
My computer currently isn't capable of creating sound samples, but I'll ask around.
Very Good. Very few issues: The intro is not very consistent. For example, you mentioned her voice in the second paragraph, moved on to something else, then rementioned it in the last paragraph. Secondly, I think you should include her albums instead of singles when talking about her being one of Columbia's biggest acts (just personal preference here). Thirdly, after skimming, I've realized that there are some places where new paragraphs should be, but arent. "Return of the Voice" was more appropriate for the comeback: it was her slogan/catch phrase or whatever. I think it should be included, but in quotation. Finally, a couple sentences are a bit disjointed— needs a better flow. Other than those, I'm absolutely impressed with everywhere else. GREAT WORK!! Orane(t)(c)(e)04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good indeed. The structure is great. The various phases of her career are handled evenly and sufficiently. Quotes, sources all well done. Image description pages are excellent, as are the images (with one exception). The total package is pretty impressive. I remember when this article was one of the worst articles on Wikipedia - what you have done is outstanding!!! I'll read though it a few more times, but for now I would look at these things :
I would avoid mentioning specific album titles in the lead paragraph and absolutely avoid mentioning the single titles. It's meant to be an overview - by spotlighting 2 particular albums and not the rest, and 2 particular singles and not the rest, it's POVish. The lead doesn't have to be substantiated to the same degree as the article text, because we should expect to go to the main article for further info. It should be a nice, broad, neutral, non specific summary.
I don't believe "unsuccess" is a real word. ;-) (from lead para 2)
"Voted as having "the greatest in music" in 2003" - doesn't make sense.
Agree that the Cinderella reference doesn't quite work. Perhaps citing an example of where the press used this term would put it into a more encyclopedic context.
"Daydream achieved career-best reviews" - I don't think this comment is supported. It's a lofty claim, so you need to prove that it was across a spectrum of reviewers, not just the New York Times, otherwise it should be reworded so it doesn't look so speculative.
"notorious" is not the best choice of word in describing her MTV appearance. I think you could remove the word without losing anything.
"as Carey has a tendency to rely too much upon music videos and lip-synched performances to promote her projects" - (my italics - this bit reads like a judgement). Should be reworded so it's just a bland fact.
some minor examples of spelling and grammatical errors. I'll go through when I have more time and fix these. (But there is no such thing as too much copyediting - read it through a dozen times if you have to)
Butterfly Melodies album cover does not qualify as fair use in this instance. It is not used to illustrate the album and as Carey's image does not appear, it does not illustrate her either. The album is mentioned only tangentially, almost as an aside, in the article. It really needs to be removed, I'm afraid.
Music samples would be great.
A suggestion - have a look at other featured articles for musicians/pop celebrities/bands (Kylie Minogue, Celine Dion, Johnny Cash, Duran Duran, New Radicals, Pink Floyd, The Supremes etc). The articles themselves are helpful, but the peer reviews and featured article nominations for them should be even more valuable. Hopefully if you can identify what people objected to in these articles, you can preempt any possible objections in regards to Mariah, and fix it before it goes to FAC. You know that people are going to object just because it's Mariah Carey so the less ammunition you leave for them, the better. Rossrs10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got the idea of mentioning her most notable singles in the lead from The Jackson 5, though I agree with your point that it is POV, and as user:Eternal Equinox said above, it would just create edit disputes over which of her songs should be mentioned.
I found "unsuccess" on dictionary.com, but you're right, it does sound suspect. I've replaced it with "minimal success".
"Voted as having "the greatest in music" in 2003" has been clarified and attributed to a source.
Inline citation added (to an article titled, coincidentially, "Cinderella Story").
Well, it isn't completely speculative as I found it in Marc Shapiro's biography of Carey, so would it be acceptable to add a footnote to the specific page?
If you have not already done so, you might want to go check out Wikipedia:Featured Music Project, which I found to be extremely helpful in my own nomination. I'm certain that, if you have most of the requirements for the FMP, your article will be 95-100% ready for FAC.--Ataricodfish05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to include We Belong Together in the sound samples. Otherwise the most recent sample is 8 years old, which is not really appropriate for a current recording artist. I think also that one large sample box is a bit overwhelming. I would consider breaking it into 2, and having one near the beginning of her career and one near the end. Rossrs01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the "We Belong Together" sample and rearranged the others. I was worried about the "Career" section becoming too crowded with images and samples though, so I inserted three samples in that section and left the other three in "Style and influence" (and split the box up). Extraordinary Machine22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you didn't want to overcrowd sectons with images and samples. I think the first few you've done look good but I'm not sure that it works they way you have included the samples in "style and influence" because those particular songs are not discussed in sufficient depth to justify the inclusion of the samples there. But they are discussed back up in the career section. I'll give it some more thought because I'm not sure how to improve this. Rossrs00:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged them again; now, the "Emotions", "One Sweet Day" and "Honey" samples are within the captions for the images that relate to those songs, while the other samples are beside paragraphs where the song or things related to it are discussed. Another option would be to move all of the samples to their own section near the bottom of the article (as on Marilyn Manson and Phil Collins), but I agree with you that it's better when they're placed inline with the text. Extraordinary Machine18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think overall the article is very good - but my concern is that it is far too long. A lot of the information included doesn't really need to be there and could be either removed or edited down. A key example of this would be the style and influence section. Imo it is at least three times longer than it needs to be. Another example would be 2001-2004; it is a time with relatively little activity in her career - yet its longer than other sections when she was in her prime.
To make the article better, I feel it needs to be cut down by about a third. It should give a good overview of her career - a blow by blow account of everything isn't needed; and its also off putting to readers because its too time consuming to read at the moment... Rimmers04:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a lot of criticisms directed at several articles about musicians for not providing adequate discussion of the musician's style, so I wanted to make sure that the article was comprehensive in that respect. I (and other editors of the article) have been trying to improve it by consulting featured articles about musicians, some of which are longer than this one; we certainly didn't want to get carried away and we only wrote about the more important points in her life and career. As for the 2001 to 2004 section; well, I think it would be misleading to readers and slightly POV to reduce coverage of the low point(s) of Carey's career. The fact that there was relatively little activity for her during this period is why it is so notable. That said, I've made an attempt to tighten the language and remove some of the more trivial material, and I've managed to shave 3kb off the article's size. Extraordinary Machine23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote this and do intend it for FAC eventually, but worry that my ignorance might be showing. Review from all sorts of angles would be very much appreciated. I hope you'll find the story a bit colorful and weird and also tragic, and that you'll enjoy the fantastic photos from 1897. They were retrieved from films that had first been lying in the snow in the Arctic for 33 years. Sorry the references are mostly in Swedish, but there's not a lot I can do about that. Bishonen | ノート19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Some things I personally think could be improved:
"No modern Andrée researcher has expressed any faith in drag ropes as a balloon steering technique." under the first heading seems a bit confusing to me, either it's a balloon expert or a historian researching Andrée, it should be narrowed to either one of those fields (unless "Andrée researcher" is a real title :))
The numbered list (#) could just as well be a bulleted list (*) unless the numbers serve a purpose.
In the paragraph following the numbered list, disambig deviation, I'd do it myself but I wasn't sure which articles it would be.
I don't know how the concept of currencies in the past is normally handled, but there should be some attempt made to indicate exactly how much much for example 130,800 kronor is, hell, I don't even know how much that would be today.
In general, increase the wikilink density, as of now they're just a little too sparse, a few more are needed to meet the (my) aestetic optimum, withoutoverdoingit, though.
I was a little confused by the use of the term "topping-up", it's probably just foreign to me, though.
I'm not really sure if kg is supposed to be pluralized in its abbreviated form, it just gives me the gut feeling of being incorrect.
Those 8 million holes, did they come from the stitches? Clarify
On the First paragraph of "On the ice" - I found the term self-abuse rather amusing, I changed it to self-trigger :D
I'd like that 360 degree panorama as a divider as an end of the "The 1897 disaster" if it's available online (it should be public domain, right?)
I think Lundström should be introduced a little better somewhere before the reference section (just mention that he was a historian, non-contemporary of Andrée or something)
Other than that, the prose is really good, it gave me a whole new view (and probably the right one) on Andrée than the one I left his museum in Grenna with, it'll be a shame to see it being sloppily edited by the Main page exposure when it reaches FA status (it will!)
The use of images is at an optimum (with room for that 360, though), there is no single place in the article where an image is not visible (at least on my screen resolution), which is good since it enhances the aesthetics of the article. Good luck, see you on FAC :) --Obli (Talk)?21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for going through it! I left the placeholder "self-abuse" in by mistake, sorry [blush]. :-) Did you not see my link to the panorama, in the footnote? It's not a 360°-all-at-once strip, but more like an animation. I wonder if I can make it clearer. I do want people to notice the link and go look, because it's very interesting, especially with being so recently discovered. A couple of the photos in it were already well-known and much-reproduced in their own right. Martinsson claims copyright in his version, and that seems reasonable to me—frankly, even if I had a legal right to use it, which I doubt, I don't think it would be fair.
About the currencies, and also the measurements, I totally agree. It would be a big help if somebody'd kindly take a look at the meters and kronor etc and do what needs doing about them. I don't know what the standard way is for showing conversions, anyway. Also I'm a little petrified by the consideration that the various sums of money mentioned, always in Swedish kronor, probably ought not to be simply converted into dollars or whatever at today's rate, but that what the reader needs is rather an indication of what those sums would mean today. For instance, was 130,000 kronor for a polar expedition a lot or a little? A historical conversion. I've no idea how to go about performing that. Thanks again for your help! Bishonen | ノート21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Obli, a little more by way of reply: the 8 million holes, yes, they're from the stitching. They're referred to as "tiny stitching holes along the seams", I don't know how to make it clearer. Any suggestions?
About Lundström: good idea. I've put something about him being the curator of the Andrée museum into the first footnote he's involved in. Putting it in the actual text might be seen as metadata, I think.
Well, I'm quite unsure if it's appropriate to speak of "topping up" a balloon with a little more hydrogen, the way you'd top up a person's glass at a party. I was a bit desperate, I needed a term, I made one up. :-) Perhaps someone else can figure a better word for "fylla på"?
It just seemed appropriate to number the list because I'd just said (quoting Andrée) that specifically four things were necessay. Hmm.. maybe not. I'll just think about it a little more. Bishonen | ノート02:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Will read the full article later this week, at the moment all I've done is found out that the price level in Sweden between 1897 and 2005 has incread by a factor 52.5, according to SCB (see Excel file for full data), which would mean that the 130,000 kronor in 1897 would be equivalent to about 6.8 million kronor today. However I don't know what to compare it to. – Elisson•Talk22:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant as far as it goes, Johan, I've put it in there with a footnote to SCB. Thank you. (And thank you very much for doing the map.) Now if somebody would do the meter/km conversions into those wild old ft and miles... it's not actually that I can't manage to convert the one to the other, but I have a nasty feeling that you're supposed to code it in some fancy way so people see the one they prefer on the page, or whatever, and that's all a mystery to me. Anybody know it? Please? Bishonen | ノート08:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
(reduce) I will do the conversion if you wish - be sure to let me know if you do NOT want me to, otherwise I will go ahead and run a formula on the distances to convert. I looked and so far as I can see the idea of auto-format based on preferences is still a gleam in someone's eye. So it will have to be in format XX.X km (XX.X mi) or something similar. KillerChihuahua?!?15:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great. Please, please do. Not that I don't deplore the necessity of inserting those quaint archaic units — I do — you see how even in 1897, the European scientific community goes 100% with the metric system? — but apparently it is a necessity, and so I'd love for it to be done. The kgs as well? And would you also make my forms of the units proper — I mean, "m" or "meter", is the plural of "kg" "kgs" or "kg" or something else, and like that? I didn't know what are the most approved forms, and so, well, frankly, I went with an, ahem, pleasing variety. Not proper, obviously. Thank you, arf, arf. Bishonen | ノート16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, evil measurements in place. I went to 2 decimal places, did not convert the one instance I saw of litres; did not convert the metres mentioned in quotes; please let me know if I missed any or you prefer the figures to be rounded (and how much.) KillerChihuahua?!?17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the whole article, there are very few things I reacted on:
S.A. Andrée's scheme, second paragraph: "distance of 1,500 km (930 m)" The abbreviation for mile, a simple "m", doesn't feel right. Is it supposed to be that way or is there a finishing "i" missing?
The 1896 fiasco, last paragraph: "His meteorological journal allows the movements of the three men during their last few months to be reconstructed with considerable exactness." The tense in this sentence feels weird. Change "allows" to "has allowed"?
I'd like to read more about who found the bodies, in which shape they were (pretty well conserved thanks to the cold, I guess?), and so on.
It would also be interresting to know the reactions, if any, in other countries (both in 1987 and in 1930). Was the expedition known by the general public in other countries at the turn of the century?
Your English is better than mine so I won't comment on the prose (and I have no comments on it either). Overall I think this article is ready for FAC. And a compliment to person who drew the map. Very good looking. ;D – Elisson•Talk21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
m is correct for mile; unfortunately, it is also correct for meter. mi is also correct - it depends on your style guide, and WP doesn't specify that I could find. We can easily change all the instances of m to mi. KillerChihuahua?!?23:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas, Johan, thanks! I'm very glad to know at what points lack of information becomes frustrating for the reader. I've added a bit more international perspective to "Promotion and fundraising" and "Myth and legacy", please see if it addresses your concerns on that point.
Er, are you quite sure you'd like to know about the bodies, though? It's a bit gross. There wasn't actually a lot left. I suppose the bears had been there, whether they killed the men or just came by for a snack afterwards. (For myself, I think polar bear attack is one of the better cause of death theories.) It's a bit of a weird note to end on. :-( But it's no good if it leaves the reader frustrated, I'll take a look tomorrow and see if I can do something without being too disgusting. And now, do you, does anybody, have any suggestion for what could be taken out? I'm having trouble killing my darlings--all the colorful details--but I do think this page is near or over the limit of what's a reasonable size for such a subject. And, yes, I'm very proud of the map. :P. Bishonen | ノート22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This is an amazingly cool and detailed article! The only thing I see immediately are references without footnoting. While not a bad thing, surely there's something they were used to confirm if they are a reference. Staxringold01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted you like the page! I've tried to only list references that are used inline in the article, and I think it's the case that nearly all the references are used for footnotes. The exceptions are the last two, Sundman and Tryde, which are instead cited directly in the article text. Lessee... Sundman's docunovel is referred to in the Lead, in the "1896 fiasco" section, and in "Myth and legacy". It's a quite important reference, as it has very much influenced the way Andrée is regarded in Sweden today. Tryde's book is in "Cause of death". The reason those guys don't have footnotes is that they don't need page references, as I'm referring to the whole books. (No redundant footnotes on my watch! Excelsior!) But they've been used, they need to be listed as references. Do you have any examples of unused references? Likely enough I've missed something. Bishonen | ノート21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! That's intriguing. See, I think it's overlong. But I thought it was about right according to WP:LEAD. The measure given there is very vague, though. I definitely will shorten it, since you agree with me; I prefer it shorter. More urgently, though, how do you mean it's not summary style? I thought it was. Could you be more specific? Bishonen | ノート21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
A very important topic in view of current events, and something people will be looking for an accurate, up-to-date source on. So I ask, what keeps this article from being a Featured Article? I know there's going to be a lot, but that's always our goal, isn't it? Judgesurreal77701:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what keeps this article from being a Featured Article?
History section almost absent. Please expand it. Reduce the dependence on tables and prosify as far as possible.
Inline references needed where appropriate.
Balance the sections. Some are long, and some are short. Expand/summarise where necessary.
I'd say the opposite about the history, actually -- I think it would be better to scrap it to the extent that the history is just about the development of the nuclear weapon. The article would be most useful if it focused closely on the effects of a nuclear explosion; it would then serve its role very well as a subpage of the main nuclear weapon article. Christopher Parham(talk)03:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The units are inconsistent, particularly for pressures.
Would adding the radii for damage to people due to shockwave pressure to the table be an improvement?
The Effects of a nuclear explosion section repeats itself & is unweildy, needs to be more concise & clearer. It should tie together with the following Direct & Indirect sections better e.g. the %ages don't include a figure for the EMP, presumably it's counted as part of the ionising radiation.
What is GR in the table? Presumably ground range.
Is a vortex ring not another way of saying mushroom cloud or at least to do with the shape of the mushroom cloud, these should be tied together.
At the top of the effects section a figure of 5% of the energy being ionising radiation is given then the ionising radiation section quotes 50%. Presumably one is measured at the nuclear device & the other is measured at an arbitrary distance once most of the ionising radiation has been converted into other effects.
This article apparently isn't attempting to treat the causes of a nuclear explosion, e.g. the design of an atomic weapon or the related physics. So it might be worth renaming it to something like Effects of nuclear explosions, or any name that better reflects exactly what this article is about. Another point: I'd like to see a little more on the applications, which are mentioned in the lead but not again. Christopher Parham(talk)03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several stylistic issues:
The list of possible uses of nuclear weapons needs to go lower here, or in a separate article.
Give a good copyedit to the History of nuclear explosions section. It is missing several serial commas and should be split into several sentences to avoid a run-on.
Severely needs inline citations. You also need to convert "bare" links to footnotes.
It's missing several key details: for example, it talks about the equilibrium temperature of the surrounding areas, but does not tell you what that temperature is.
A layman does not why you're calling X-rays "soft" - you need to explain more about that.
Several grammar issues. I've corrected most of them, but you need someone to go over and copyedit the entire article.
Weasel words. "Some eardrums would probably rupture..." do they rupture or not? Do you have a source for that?
Overall, it is a bit too technical, and needs some "dumbing down" to be brilliant prose. It still checks out on everything else, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us)00:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the world's most famous cities, and yet, the article is of low quality. It requires much attention and it would be absolutely fantastic to promote it to a featured article. All suggestions and comments welcome! —Eternal Equinox | talk00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a chance to read the article carefully yet, but here are a couple of organizational suggestions:
Put the list of announcers on its own page. Most of the truly important ones are mentioned in the article text, and the list really clogs up the page as is. If nothing else, it should be moved to the bottom of the page.
Ditto for the Nielsen ratings.
The "External links" section can be cut down drastically. Actually, I can't find any link in that section that needs to be here. Each World Series has its own article on Wikipedia. 1998 World Series, for instance.
In order to be a Featured Article, in-line citations are needed. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to do this.
Can't exactly do this, because the article isn't "mine" per se. I thought that in-line citations were preferable for Featured Articles, not a requirement.
Due to the sub-sub-heading "ABC and NBC Alternates Coverage of the All-Star Game, League Championship Series, and World Series: 1976-1989" the table of contents is stretched to an awkward size. Always be considering and re-considering the structure and organization of the article. Try incorporating the "Notes" sub-section into the "The Baseball Network: 1994-1995" section. There are two sections called "1960s", why are "1970s" and "1980s" sub-sections of "1960s"? The "1940s" and "1950s" sections could be merged to an "Early years" section. Consider placing that first paragraph of "1940s" about television's relationship with baseball into the introduction and keep the body of the article on the topic of "MLB on NBC". Were there regularly scheduled games on NBC with a regular format/theme/sportscaster in the 1950s or was it a sporadic hodge-podge? And of course inline citations are required, so the external links within the body should be converted to these inline citations. --maclean2517:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to see this article get featured status. I personally did a bit of work late last year cleaning it up. If there's still a ways to go, I'd like to create a to-do list for the talk page (although I don't think it's that far off.) A few more pictures would be great, but I haven’t been able to find any that could be rationalized for fair use. "Good article" status so far. Thanks in advance for any comments. Mrtea(talk)17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His 1970's work, Tea for the Tillerman and Teaser and the Firecat (which are more or less the albums that made him famous to many), are given far too little coverage relative to other topics. The article is biased towards later events which would largely be ignored by the public if not for his successful 70's albums. More discussion on topics relating to the albums such as their success, themes, musical sound and reasons for success is needed. Other parts of the article might use a trim to restore balance. Cedars00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good, but I agree with Cedars that the early career section needs more expansion. Some minor things it doesn't cover:
It never explains why he took the name "Cat Stevens".
Thanks a lot guys, I really needed some different perspectives. The article does seem a little slanted towards his later life and "controversy." I'm definitely going to add the important info that's missing about his earlier music career and life. Glad style and format seems to be in check. Mrtea(talk)05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem if you wanted to take this to FAC is the overall low quality of the sources. You'd probably need to get at least a few books and do some other wider research. Also there's too many short paragraphs that make the flow choppy. See User:Taxman/Featured article advice for more expanded reasoning and some other things to work on before taking this to FAC. - TaxmanTalk21:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice and link. I definitely understand it still has a ways to go before it goes to FAC. I'd like to see it get there one day, but we've still got work. Thanks again for the advice. Mrtea(talk)20:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of work on this article - the subject of an awful lot of news in Scotland right now - to try and bring it up to a high standard, discussing its physical and political importance. A successful self-nomination as a good article was made last week and more work done since then. Erath14:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's there is very good (good prose, excellent references, useful and attractive photos). I think, however, that there's a great deal that could be added. Off the top of my head I'm thinking:
A map showing the major roads of eastern central Scotland, which is needed I think to show the economic importance and utility of the bridge (and concomitently the great cost of its being unavailable). If the map showed as far east as Stirling and as far North as Dundee it should show what a pain either using the Kincardine crossing and the A985 or the A977, or the A9. I can make such a map, but unfortunately not for another month or so.
I think some mention of the impact of the bridge's construction on the economies and town plans of southern Fife should be made; I believe Dalgety Bay was constructed largely in anticipation of the bridge, and I guess a lot of the economic growth of Dunfermline (and the residential growth in much of Fife) can be attributed to the bridge.
It would be nice to see a photo of the bridge during construction; perhaps the local historical societies can help?
A photo of the toll plaza in the rush hour would do a lot to illustrate the issue of congestion; right now we say the bridge is congested with vehicles but none of our photos shows a vehicle.
A graph showing both the tolls and the annual traffic numbers, with years as the horizontal axis would be informative; if those data are available I can draw the graph.
A small in-car photo of the tollbooth (with the blue toll sign) would make a nice illustration for the tolls section of the article.
A photo of the old ferry would be nice (again, perhaps the historical society can help)
The table showing the proposed variable-toll scheme should be floated right, as it's eating a lot of vertical space. Perhaps the text could be colour-coded, or perhaps a diagram could be produced (perhaps a clockface-like piechart, showing the different toll regimes as different coloured pieslices). I could probably draw that too, if folks think it's a good idea.
The table has now been colour-coded and right-aligned. At least another couple of pictures will hopefully be forthcoming, but there probably isn't space in the article for them all. Erath12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Placing an illustration atthe end of the section preceding the one it is meant to illustrate is poor layout. If it is supposed to illustrate the section it is, then move it up.
If the ultimate goal is featuring,then you'll need to expand the lead
What is the significance of being awarded Historic Scotland's Category A listed structure status? Is Historic Scotland an authority on architecture or heritage value? A map showing the bridges relationship with the two communities (especially Edinburgh) it connects would be nice. Can the potential impacts/consequences of the proposed expansion/twinning be expanded? Specifically, there is more to the opposition than a desire not to see increased traffic and more to the support position than wanting to see a replacement for a 40 year old bridge. --maclean2519:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's really not much significance of it's being a grade A listed building. Unlike the comparable listing scheme in England, pretty much any building that Wikipedia would consider "notable" seems to be grade A. I once tried to make a list in Listed_building#Scotland with categories similar to that found in Listed_building#Famous_listed_buildings (which are all in England), but couldn't find much in any of the lower categories. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk10:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about something beyond the structural and political? The bridge must play quite an important part in social and cultural sphere of that part of Scotland, though I admit that all I can think of at the moment is an intermittantly dire Iain Banks novel. --zippedmartin10:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough then, but 12 million cars a year is a lot of commuters, perhaps it's not as glamorous, but there's got to be something to say about it beyond the purely practical. --zippedmartin13:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen worse. The topic is admittedly not a general encl. article, at least not until such a group (or class) becomes more historically important than this, and much of the writing seems almost tounge-in-cheek enough that it could be a Bad Jokes Candidate, but that's for WP:AFD to recommend. Other parts of it seem pertinent and while it may need a lot of TLC, folks familiar with it's social context (Ireland, the U.K) need to weigh in 'here' before I'd definitely say it should be nominated for deletion. FrankB02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what aid I can enlist to make some maps. I love what Pcb21 did with the cetacean articles.
Noted. I'll work on this, although it will take some time. Lots of habitats.....
I'll catch this tomorrow.
I'm mostly interested in taxonomic relationships, so this POV comes across a bit. I'll see what I can do to balance by adding other parts so that I don't have to remove. *grins*
Ok, I've done 3 and 5 for the most part. I think I should do something with the hybridization section, too. I'm looking to the other language 'pedias to see what information I can transwiki to improve this article. I think perhaps a section with more detail on some of the larger groupings would be helpful. - UtherSRG(talk)17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diet
Could somebody put in something about diet here? Maybe this is too broad a page for that topic,
but can something sensible be said about the general range of diets in (non-human) primates?
Some are very highly specialized, some not, and I think it would be interesting to have a very brief overview and perhaps some references (and a bit more on some species specific pages).
Abu Amaal23:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some are herbivores, some are more specifically foliovores and fugivores. Some are omnivores. I'm not sure if any are strictly carnivores. I'll work on adding some information. - UtherSRG(talk)23:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've contributed quite a bit to this article and although it's been given 'good article' status I'd like it to be as good as possible. It would be nice if it could be an informative source for scientists and medics who are interested, but also accessible to everyone, and it's difficult to get the balance right and still make it easy to read. I also was not sure whether it needed a section on prion strains - this is still a bit controversial so it would be quite speculative and maybe is a bit too academic for this kind of article? I love this subject so it would be great if this could be good enough for a featured article. --Purple02:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that that factually I think it's fine, it was reviewed by Nature and any errors have been corrected.--Purple03:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. I think I'd also like to read about the research into how to revert prions. Also I believe there have been some results that show prions can also serve a beneficial role for some life forms.[1]
[2] Could you give the second illustration a caption? It is not immediately clear what it is showing. Thanks. — RJH19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's another article on 'good' prions (fungal prions). Perhaps the main prion article could mention that side of things a bit more prominently, like in the intro--Purple03:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I have again expanded and improved this article on the Australian actress. I plan to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intro needs some tweaking. It should be a better summary of the article. (And don't repeat Australian Film Institute.) The theatre section could use some expansion. How long did those plays run? What city where they in? The "Early life and education" section could use some work--it is vague in places. How exactly did her father influence her? Where did her mother live (at least in relation to Sydney, where her father lived)?
Overall this is a nice article, and a big improvement over its previous incarnations. I thought it was informative. Cheers, Fang Ailitalk20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article and I was willing to work on it to possibly get it to FA status. Of course I can't do it alone so I wanted so get more eyes with different points of view on it.Nnfolz17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now here is an video game that can have lots academic references and critical analysis. Consider these sources here. Make sure to convert those external links in the body to footnotes. Consider reducing the "External links" section. Review failed video game FACs to see what went wrong for them, like Spira, 3D Monster Maze, Tecmo Cup, Paper Mario, Final Fantasy VI.--maclean2505:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above, plus it's way too long, and the focus is pretty much entirely within the gaming world: what is not directly about the game environment and game play, is discussion from the POV of, essentially, the people waiting for, speculating about, and reacting to it. Putting it in a general real world context is important. Technical stuff like how it was developed, did it in any way innovate compared to other games, did it do anything new with the use of established actors and music. Business info like marketing, how much it made, etc. Social impact, criticisms, was it banned anywhere, that sort of thing. I don't believe there's any favored WP format for VGs, even among those that are Featured, but in general, "not just from a 'fan' perspective" is a good rule. --Tsavage06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Many video game fans need to get a life and learn how to view video games more objectively (I should know, I used to have that problem when I was a kid). --Coolcaesar01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead needs expansion. It should be a summary of the entire article.
"myths and easter eggs" and "crossover" sections could benefit from summary style.
One-paragraph sections are generally frowned upon. Besides, I don't think the subheaders under "san Andreas Worlds" are necessary
Way too many external links subsections. There's 9 subheaders there!
Seriously, I think this meets most, if not all, the criteria for an FA candidate. Any suggestions for possible improvement or things to avoid would be appreciated, however. --Lacatosias11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall it looks quite good from my quick glance. I am not sure about the tone it has been written in, it reads in places more like a popular philosophy book than a reference book; the section on The Mind-Body Problem in particular reads like the foreword of such a book. (I appreciate that it has been written so as to understandable to non-philosphers such as myself). The intro needs to be expanded to be a summary of the whole article, not a preamble that leads into the first chapter. But these are problems of presentation and otherwise looks hella comprehensive and referenced. It probably needs just a couple of pairs of eyes, and I'll give it a more detailed look very soon and leave my thoughts here. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk09:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a moment (edit conflict).Here was my response to the first comment:
I appreciate the comments. I think you're right about the intro: I'm not used to writing summary-style intros but habituated to brief lead-off style essays and such. I'll try to adress that ASAP. As to tone, I'm not sure I really want to address that for fear of all-too-easily going to the other extreme.--Lacatosias14:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is not nearly so bad in the rest of the article that I have read, to be fair, but you really need to tighten up that Mind-Body Problem introduction. I sympathise with why you don't want to go to far the other way. I'll try and help some. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk15:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,
1) mind-body problem intro needs to be de-popularized. Still needs to be addressed.
2) Intro has been expanded and I have attempted to make it as close to a full summary of the article as possible without blowing it up out of proportion.
Take a look at this new version.
Okay, time for some more thoughts. These may not need to be answered, they are just questions that arose in my mind when I read the article.
Arguments for dualism - what do philosophers make of the first argument? Is it in favour?
This has been taken care of, I believe.
Interaction dualism - You probably shouldn't write it is clear that my mental states (desires, beliefs, etc.) or Descartes' argument obviously depends on the crucial premise that what I believe to be "clear and distinct" ideas in my mind are necessarily true., as in avoid self referencing. Unless, of course, this is conventional in philosophy. But you should certainly avoid self referincing in the context of the article as much as possible. see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_self-referential_pronouns
taken care of.
Interaction dualism - This idea is rejected by most modern philosophers. Why?
Taken care of, I believe: Answer now provided in artcile.
Behaviorism - Why is this a monism rather than a dualism?
These are some interesting question. The answer to number 1 is that this is definitely a consideration (not really an argument) in favor of dualism. Like most arguments (even relatively sophisticated ones), it is overwhelmingly rejected by modern philosphers. Are you suggesting it is vague or not very interstng as an argument. If that is the case, I can easily replace it with much more sophisticated arguments for dualism that I know of. Number 2 on self-referencing: yes, indeed, this is very common in philosophy (even philosophical encylcopedias) but it can easily be eliminated and is not neccesary to the article.With reagrd to the third point; this was actually a bit of careleness. I intended to write up a response to that argument, but then backed-off since I though it would cause an long cycle of replies and countereplies (the hard part of wiriting about philosphy arguments knowing where to stop becasue there are no final answers as in science or math). But either the question obsvervation should be removed or an explnation given. Behavorism is physicalistic monism because it claims that there simply are no mental states such as beliefs, desires (no inner mental life at all, therefore no mind) but just dispositons (or conditioned reflexes) to behave in certain ways. This might need claficiation. Thanks for the input.--Lacatosias15:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-1 it doesn't need to be removed, in fact as a position that the avarage reader would identify with I'd argue that it deserves a mention. Just clarify it is asupporting argument rather than a strong position. 2: I'd suggest looking at how they deal with it in other philosophy Featured Articles, free will, Omnipotence paradox and other wikipedia articles. (Oh, and the hard part of wiriting about philosphy arguments knowing where to stop becasue there are no final answers as in science or math yeah, it isn't actually that different from biology, except that for every rule in biology there is an exception.) Sabine's Sunbirdtalk15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually tackled the third point first and provided some powerful reasons that most philosophers reject the idea of "clear and disticnt ideas" in modern times. I hope that is satisfactory. The first two points will be dealt with right away: not a problem.--Lacatosias15:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright folks, don't just criticize and run please. This is peer-review not FAC. How shall we get this thing up to FA status?? --Lacatosias08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, tiger. The Peer Review process takes a week, and we all work to different schedules. However a quick glance at the intro - I don't think you are quite there yet. You should set it up so that the first paragraph describes the problem and the next two talks about the various solutions and philosophies. I should have more time to look at this tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing in at about 90K??! and four paragraphs?? How the devil is it possible to explain the philosophy of mind in three paragraphs anyway. Am I supposed to be Steven Jay Gould or something?? Good heavens!! The FA German version has a two-sentence intro!!--Lacatosias18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do sympathise, really. I am curently trying to get albatross through FAC and, well, there are gaps in what I have written that make me weap. I will try and help you, with my limited philosophical experience. Just remember that in the intro you can make sweepuing general statements that you don't have to back up in any way (as long as they are covered in the article.). Sabine's Sunbirdtalk19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I very much appreciate your taking your time to follow up on your criticims of the article and not just leave a brief comment and run, as happened on my only previous occasion of Peer Review concerning my article on Jerry Fodor. "It's to long, break it up". Done. "It's too technical". Tried to clarify. No response for a month. Archived. Period. Anyway, you have been very helpful. The points you identified were indeed significant deficiencies. The intro, for example, is now much closer to what the standards require. I will look it over again and see what's missing or unclear.--Lacatosias08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ploughing on through the article. Identity theory - I think I understand how token identity theory overcomes the challanges faced by identity theory that were mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, but it could possibly be a little clearer.
Functionalism - Putnam and Fodor saw mental states in terms of an empirical computational theory of the mind - as a non-philosopher I have no idea what empirical computational theory of the mind means, please link the somewhere phrase to somewhere relevant or explain briefly.
Hmm.. is this server working now?? I didn't link to computational theory of the mind because it's another one of the thousands of stubs that I'll probably end up having to expand myself. This could be a chllenge. I may have to simply delete the expression or create a more direct linkg to the functionalism article there. It's fairly well-explained in that piece. Or perhaps copy an pate a section out of functionalism. Ok, I'll see what's the best approach. It shouldn't be a problem to revise the identity theory just a bit to emphasize the distintion.--Lacatosias16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stub is fine, it tells you what it is without overburdening you with details. Possibly a gross oversimplification, but at a fundamental level I know what it is now. Anyway, I have pretty much reached near the end of the article. I need some time to try and digest it. My only concern, apart from a few small niggles like I have already brought up, is the way the whole thing flows, and I need to think about how and if that can be addressed, given the nature of the subject. I think I need to read it again, so bear with me, this is very different to teh usual stuff I edit. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of work done on the article since March 2006. (I mistakenly said 2007 when first posting.) I recently got involved and shuffled sentences into paragraphs in the introduction and shuffeled around sections to re-structure the overall document. I've also added images. It seems like it reads pretty well and it might be time for another review. I just found this review page, but while it seems like some comments might still apply a lot of them no longer do. (The one specific question I would have would be regarding using the present tense in the sentence ending the first paragraph of the introduction (is v.s. was) -- in that the Industrial Revolution continues to develop and continues to change lives today.) --kop18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History is written by the victorious. I am glad to see that the article gives arguments as presented by historians, and doesn't present their arguments as facts. Yes, there were many potential causes, but which were influential and which coincidental...we don't know, they are just arguments.
There is currently a lack of sufficient inline citations. Below are some instances/phrases that might require them (note: some can be simply re-worded to avoid citation):
"with some historians seeing the Revolution as..."
"...are also cited as factors,"
"One question of active interest to historians is..."
"Numerous factors have been suggested, including ecology, government, and culture." (either relate this to specific points to come in the text or perhaps provide a general reference)
" Benjamin Elman argues that..." (can you point the reader to where he makes this argument?)
"Kenneth Pomeranz, in the Great Divergence, argues that..." (currently does not appear in the references)
"modern estimates of per capita income..." (whose calculations are these?)
"the noted historian Rajni Palme Dutt has been quoted as saying, 'The capital...'" (ref quote)
"Some have stressed the importance of natural..."
"Another theory is that Great Britain was ..."
"...is the origin of the modern engineering industry." (just seems like a bold statement that could get challenged)
In "Causes", combine the two sentences about epidemics and larger workforce into one (use a semicolon if you have to) because they are both part of one thought, not two separate thoughts (sentences)
Why does "large domestic market" cause get its own paragraph but larger workforce, Agricultural Revolution, Technological innovation and colonial expansion have to share?
"...a condition that holds true even into the 21st century.", "...with modern concepts of automatic illegality." (keep the article on topic)
The "Lunar society" section appears to be a counter-argument of the "Protestant work ethic" sub-sub-section, rather than a separte theme like Protestantism. Consider merging these two sections.
Why does "Protestant work ethic" get a separate section opposed to the other causes listed in "Causes for occurrence in Great Britain"?
In the "Innovations" section intro, orient the paragraph to take the reader down from the general to the specific (ie. innovations such as making iron/steel and harnessing water/steam power resulted in inventions such as steam engine and flying shuttles...), and also introduce concepts discuss in the sub-sections like tramission/publication of ideas
Avoid those one-sentence paragraphs like "Josiah Wedgwood and Matthew Boulton were other prominent early industrialists.", "One of the earliest reformers of factory conditions was Robert Owen.", "During the Industrial Revolution, these different methods were improved and developed." and "In 1842, Cotton Workers in England staged a widespread strike."
I'm not sure the Luddites paragraph in the "Factories" sub-sub-section fits, maybe just keep them in the "Luddites" sub-section
In "Mining" please clarify what this sentence is saying: "Coal mining in Britain, particuarly in South Wales is of great age.", also the "Mining" section seems simplistic compared the other sections surrounding it, consider expanding (Innovation)
In "Metallurgy" I don't think the summary style is intended for use of articles that are still
In "Transportation" consider merging the sub-sub-sections "Navigable rivers", "Coastal sail", and "Canals" into one section about transport along waterways
In "Transportation" explain what each element meant to the industrial revolution (how it impacted, further enhanced/degraded 'progress'), rather than a straight explanation of the topic.
The introduction of "Social effects" should be more descriptive, and consider replacing the "&" with "and".
In "Child labour", "prehistoric times" is over-kill. Replace the external link with a footnote.
In "Housing situation" (odd title, maybe consider 'Public Health' or 'Slums' or 'Urban housing', etc.) the Sanitary Report (1842) is quoted without a reference. Btw, that is an excellent choice for a source.
Re-visit the "Luddites" section. They were not just a bunch of unemployed machine-smashers, but protester/activists against the new way of life that industrialization creates (ie. the new lower class; the large pool of unskilled labor that capitalists drool over). Smashing machines was a symbolic/rallying-the-troops (and I guess therapeutic) thing.
"Other effects" valiantly trys to lump a bunch of other changes to society into a few paragraphs, but it needs better organization. The start a new paragraph at "mass migration of rural families into urban areas" as this is about rural-to-urban migration whereas the previous sentences were discussing international effects. After this it seems like just a bunch of other effects were thrown together. Try to better relate them to one another in order to keep them in the same paragraph (or elaborate one piece into another paragraph - environmental effects like coal consumption might be a good candidate).
Consider moving "Marxism" and "Romanticism" into "Intellectual paradigms" (it is plural) and removing the "Criticism" heading.
Incorporated a lot of your ideas for the first bit and started backtracking with the references, there's a lot of work here, might send it to AID --PopUpPirate22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems too Anglo-centric. Obviously the IR began in Britain, but other countries contributed and its impacts were felt worldwide. An Industrial Revolution in Britain article would be great, but this is just Industrial Revolution. Other countries need more attention. Even the wording of the article in sections like "Navigable rivers" have language assuming Britain is the focus of the article (not to mention it has "Main article: Rivers of Great Britain")--Bkwillwm09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is completly inadequate - it should be significantly expanded. Lose the 'Overview' section, merge everything from it into the lead. Lead is overview, after all. Some sections are stub-sections and should be expanded, ex. 'Intellectual paradigms' (which for some reason has one and only one subsection - aren't there more paradigms?), or 'Luddites'. More inline citations are needed. The article mentions Weber and Marx, but what about Durkheim?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]I'd move the Watt steam engine top right.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 miles, use 6 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6 miles.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
arguably
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
I have been working on this article for a couple of months with some helpful edits by others, but I feel that the page may too much reflect my own vision of what an article of consequentialism should be (not that this article is my POV, I hope). I would appreciate any comments, but particularly on any major areas I have overlooked. Any suggestions? Ig077401:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leads need expansion badly.
It's possible that an article series template is appropriate. You might want to look in related article to see if there is one.
there is no apparent reason for the John Stuart Mill picture to be where it is.
Overall: massive improvement on previous version; great stuff; I'd make my students read this.
Balance, structure and length: good. Future editors should try to keep topic additions in offshoot articles rather than adding to this one.
Style: occasionally woffly or epic, but that happens to me too when I write too much. Some rephrasing and sharpening might be good at a number of points.
Opening definition: possibly add a couple of sentences to say what consequentialism is not, as well as what it is (e.g. distinguish briefly from deontology and virtue ethics).
Mill picture: keep until something better comes along.
Too many references to Peter Singer? The 3rd time isn't really necessary.
I really like what I've done with this article. I'd just like to know if it is good enough for featured article status and, if not, what I can do to improve it. (Ibaranoff2423:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I think all the screencaps should have a rationale of fair use written for them and that the captions need periods at the end of them. Also the most important thing is that the article needs to have sources citied. For example the box office data. Underneath-it-All20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to find some non-web references. Check pretty much any history of animation and you're likely to find discussion of this film. A couple I recommend are Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age by Michael Barrier and Animation: The Magic of Motion by Charles Solomon. Leonard Maltin's got one, too: Of Mice and Magic or something like that. This is really important if you want to get this to Featured status, as many editors are questioning web references on FAC lately. — BrianSmithson16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the changes since the last peer review have been fixed, so we're giving this another shot. I'd really like to shoot for FA. Let me know if you think it's ready. -mercuryboardtalk♠22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
It seems as though the land-grant act and Fixed. Willard Straight takeover are the only significant points which didn't make it into the main article. The land-grant status has already been covered elsewhere in the article, and the takeover is an isolated incident which doesn't really need a main article mention. What else ought we summarize? -mercuryboardtalk♠02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.You might want to revise the layout a bit as to avoit two headers directly following each other. This could also be corrected by adding a "buffer" summary. I would consider removing the "Examples of notable projects" header completely, though. These would be assumed to be some of the most notable examples anyway. Circeus02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are only 'double headers' on Campuses, Academics, and Student life... three areas which I don't think really need a buffer. They exist to organize the page a little more and keep something like International Programs as a second-priority header. -mercuryboardtalk♠02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a first glance, it looks okay (I haven't read it in detail). However, I would suggest you look over the article closely and find instances of boosterism. No matter how many citations you use, if you only speak highly of Cornell (which seems difficult not to do so given the university's reputation) the article will fail FAC (at worst) or barely pass it (at best). If there are negatives concerning Cornell, list them as well. PentawingTalk04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editors have been very careful about boosterism, and as far as I can see, we're npov. Let me know if you find anything questionable. -mercuryboardtalk♠04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Andy's point about dates: This task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice tool, it caught three decade links that I hadn't with a search for [[####]] links. Do you have any other advice for this article? Would you recommend going for FAC? -mercuryboardtalk♠16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's got a ways to go to get to NPOV. Pretty much the entire article focuses on highlighting positive points about the university. Sure it's a very well regarded university, but saying that should be confined to a small section supporting the reasons why it is highly regarded. The rest should just describe instead of highlighting positive aspects. I can't overemphasize how important that is, and must note it's not close so far. UM and MSU probably both still suffer from too much boosterism that is hard to excise, but this article goes much farther. Now that those two articles are out there, you'll have to do better instead of worse. As specific advice excise all "more than..." and just give the number. Also the lead isn't a proper summary of the article per WP:LEAD but don't worry about that until the rest is fixed. - TaxmanTalk02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent about an hour copyediting the entire page, and I did find tons of pov and bad prose, which I fixed. Please see my changes here. It's improving dramatically but could always use more input. -mercuryboardtalk♠04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wording changes are an improvement, but doesn't go far enough. There are still lots of superfluous "more than", "the most..", etc (I know those aren't all easy to fix quickly), and nothing's been done to address the fact that the whole structure is set up to highlight the university's positives. What about negatives? The sports section doesn't note how competitive (or not) Cornell is in most sports. My understanding is they don't win that much in general division 1 play, especially postseasons, championships, etc. Nothing in the article notes criticisms or shortcomings of the school. So in short, you're going in the right direction to reach FA, just keep going. - TaxmanTalk11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many references to criticisms of the university throughout the article. There just aren't all that many negatives or controversies worth mentioning. The athletics article is fair- it lists achievements, and any reader would realize that if there are few achievements listed (as there are), then few things have been achieved. What do you expect, something like "aside from the aforementioned successes, Cornell's athletic programs are generally poor?" And I've already eliminated all instances of "more than" and the remaining instances of "the most" are used properly. Please cite specific examples if you find further problems. As a side note, we are currently a FAC, you may want to object there if you feel it is appropriate. -mercuryboardtalk♠21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read the article, and it still has substantially all the problems I originally pointed out in my comments on June 4. What do I expect? I expect the article to be NPOV. Not be a listing of achievements, but a description of the facts. Are the athletics programs really generally poor and fail to consistently compete for championships? Then yes, I expect that to be stated. That's neutrally describing the facts of the subject. If instead they are extremely good then you say that. The highlighting of achievements only really does still pervade the article. Just additionally adding in a couple negative facets doesn't fix it either, because that doesn't give the reader the right idea it just presents a polar picture. Just accurately describe the subject of the article. If you can't see the POV problems weaved throughout the article that might be a problem. You may need to recruit someone with the opposite POV to point them out individually for you. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that, I just have to settle for pointing out the general problem. - TaxmanTalk23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this, but there is something disturbing about the images. Perhaps there are too many, or perhaps they should all be on the same side. Or maybe it is because they seem to be different sizes. Just a thought. bobblewik22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is getting close to a FA status. However, I think it may get shot down dut to it's size of 71k. The article Germany was opposed for that very reason. I encourage to identify and remove redundent images or details that are not essential... either that or move material into daughter articles. That said, the main structure of this article is very good.--P-Chan20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
old PR here. Pretty much entirely written by Jeffmatt and I. I think it's pretty good, but could maybe using some polishing. It is very large, but this is a really major topic. I am too close to the text right now to do the kind of editing it needs (and Jeffmatt probably is too), so please point to areas you think are bloated. Tuf-Kat00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed as an article with "invalid ISBNs" in the references, I guess. The "Instrumentation" subsection of Folk music has quite a few redlinks, something should be done about those. -Fsotrain0916:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. It is possible to blue-stub all of those red links, I suppose, but I am wondering whether it is not a better idea to simply unlink them, since they are just dialect words for the instruments mentioned in the same sentences. I saw the invalid ISBN note. A slip of the finger produces bad numbers, I know. I guess I can check them one at a time. Jeffmatt06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks again. I have just linked about six or seven of those items to new music stubs--short but sufficient for the moment. I fudged on two or three others by rephrasing the sentences along the lines of "...bagpipe, called by different dialect names such as...etc...etc...". Anyway, the red links are gone. ISBN numbers....Is there such as thing as an ISBN reverse look-up? You type the number and the name of the book pops up? I bet the Feds have something like that! Call Jack Bauer. Jeffmatt14:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like this article to be a comprehensive introduction to the city, Ireland's third largest. There are several large spin-off articles, including History of Limerick which is FA. But this root article should cover every general aspect of the city. Can anyone see any gaps or omissions? Seabhcán14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a great song, as well as the first of many great songs released by Phil Collins. This song has lasted through the ages and is still consider a 'classic'. I'm hoping that this peer review will give me an idea about what still needs to be done on this article, or hopefully get Good article status. Hopefully not much :) . --Skully Collins12:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure I share your enthusiasm for the song, but since I'm here... Firstly, I think the normal practice is to put a picture of the original single inside the infobox - did the original not have a picture sleeve or anything? It might be nice to have a screenshot to illustrate the section about the video too. The text itself looks a bit lacking in parts, particularly the lead, which should be a couple of paragraphs long (see WP:LEAD). The video section is just a brief overview of what happens in the video; maybe you include details of other performances or existing recordings of the song, as is done on "This Charming Man". The "Other pop culture references" section: many editors dislike such collections of trivia, so you may wish to integrate the important information into the main text. I also notice a couple of links directly to media content on other websites, which I believe is frowned upon - a link to the relevant page on the other website should be enough. It's not looking bad though, do make sure all opinions are referenced to the people who expressed them. Flowerparty■20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there -- Regretably, a lot of work needs to go into this article. Everything Flowerparty says is accurate, but to go further, more has to be about the song itself. What did the critics think of the song? Were there comparisons to Genesis, since it was Collins' first solo song? Of all of Collins' songs, there is probably more written about this one and its influences on 80s music, his career, etc., than any of his songs. Because of this, the article can't just be about the lyrics and video (although the video was probably important, too, since it was among the first 50 aired on MTV). The article needs to answer, why is this song important? Best of luck with the article. As an obvious fan of Collins, I appreciate the work being put into the article. -- BTW, as I previously uploaded a 30 second sample of "In the Air Tonight" for the Collins article during its FA nomination, I included a link in this article, too. --Ataricodfish06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard this song for the first time in 1988, and ever since it's been one of my fav. Phill Collins was a bit ahead of this time with the compression technique he used in the song. The lyrics, vocals and instrumental (drums) make the song a delight to listen.
Article has been somewhat controversial and would appreciate some outside opinions on improvements such as article flow from those without any vested interest. Garglebutt / (talk)11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a flurry of controversy and expansion, the article seems rather stable now and not too far from FAC. Please review and improve further. dab(ᛏ)11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the glyphs are dead in the image and I'm not sure what the selected bibliography is doing there. A bibliography is usually a list of books by one author. Stephen King's bibliography would be a list of all his books. Calling a list of books on a topic the same is confusing.
Were they used to create the article? --> put them under the references header
Are they just further reading material for interested people? --> Put them in a further reading section.
I don't think there's a need to delete the links, they contain a wealth of useful info for anyone who wants to take a further look into the subject. - Mgm|(talk)13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be longer. It's a large article and can't be adequately summarized in such a short space. The lead also needs to include something about what the symbols look like, are believed to represent and what other scripts they've been compared to. - Mgm|(talk)13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a stab at the lead, I'll try reviewing the whole article starting in about 6 hours. Disclosure: "I've got an interest in old scripts and own at least 2 books on the subject." - Mgm|(talk)13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quite comprehensive article. But perhaps the most prominent decipherment claims should be discussed and not just listed. In addition, I would like to raise two minor points: First, the four pictures giving a detailed view on certain parts of the disc (such as Diskos.von.Phaistos_Detail.1_11-Aug-2004_asb_PICT3372.JPG) are perhaps redundant. There are already two pictures of the disc, two pictures of its replica, and images of all glyphs. Therefore, the value of those four "middle-range" pictures is minimal. Second, it is not necessary to overuse internal links. For example, the term "Luwian hieroglyphs" links to Hieroglyphic Luwian whenever it is mentioned. I think it would be sufficient to make a link only when the new term is introduced. Tankred21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want to overlink and link every mention (against WP:MOS), but a mention per screen so you don't need to scroll to find the link, would perhaps be a good alternative. - 131.211.210.1611:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article alot. I wish more could look like this one, however I would like to see more known history about it, if it is available. Also, make the bottom matter a bit more visually pleasing. However, great work. --Scaife(Talk)Don't forget Hanlon's Razor03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a legitmate topic, but it requires peer review for many reasons. It is unreferenced, very short, and could be expanded and perhaps even promoted to a featured article. My first concern is the citations and where to retrieve them, and my second is the topic's history and actors/actresses who have displayed such a trait characterized as "process drama". All suggestions welcome. —Eternal Equinox | talk02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote much of this article to emphasize the character's role outside the Star Wars universe per the guideline Writing About Fiction. This article has changed dramatically since it first appeared at peer review and FAC. It was a good article before, but apparently not what the Wikipedia community at FAC was looking for. Explanations of the changes I made can be found here: Talk:Jabba the Hutt. Any suggestions for improvement of the article to meet FAC standards will be appreciated. Dmoon104:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Haven't had a chance to go over it with a fine toothcomb, though it definitely is worthy as previous Star Wars character FA's by DMoon1. If I find anything amiss, I'll be sure to get in touch with Dmoon1. There's one bit though;
" Ian McDiarmid required little make-up in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, he remembers, "I'm ... slightly aged [in Attack of the Clones]. In the last film, I had a fairly standard make-up on, but now, they're starting to crinkle my face."[50] "
The following words "he remembers" after the first sentence seem possibly awkward, but this is only my personal opinion. Could "he remembers" be changed to "remembering", "reminiscing" or something in a similar vein? LuciferMorgan08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this to "he recalled". Please let me know if you find anything else that sounds awkward or needs to be addressed. Dmoon112:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice work so far. My main concern is whether the casual reader will be a little lost when reading the article, as even though I know the films and the character quite thoroughly, I was a little confused at parts. The "Appearances" section starts off fine, but when it gets to his role in Episodes II and III it starts becoming a little rushed. For example, Count Dooku and his relationship to Palpatine kinda come out of nowhere.
I expanded some instances where the narrative seemed rushed; I want to keep the plot sections as concise as possible. If you point some other examples out I'll see what I can do. Dmoon1
I found this quote in "Literature" to be misplaced: "These novels demonstrate how the Jedi are blind to Palpatine's true identity as a Sith Lord. In Shatterpoint, Mace Windu remarks to Yoda, "A shame [Palpatine] can't touch the Force. He might have been a fine Jedi." Eh?
I'm not sure what you don't understand. Mace Windu and Yoda, the two most powerful Jedi at the time, could not detect that Palpatine was Force-sensitive or that he was in fact a Sith Lord while sitting in his very presence; the last bit about him being a fine Jedi was a reference to his diplomatic and political skills, I think. Dmoon114:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics section coming along, although I think a little more could be said about his lightsaber skills (he defeats three Jedi and Yoda in Ep. 3 after all) and his Force abilities (he manages to hide his plot from the entire galaxy). Also, no information about his deceptive relationships with his pupils. Maybe a mention of his racism towards non-human species as well?
His force abilities (including lightsaber skills) probably could be split into a separate paragraph. His racism is mentioned and a quote by Count Dooku concerning Sidious's views is there too. Dmoon114:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would get rid of the opening sentences in "Concept and creation" as the information is basically repeated down below. This statement, "Lucas's original conception of Palpatine was of a cunning but weak politician elevated into office and controlled by bureaucrats" needs a reference I think. Also, this sentence about Ian McDiarmid, "He became the artistic director of the Almeida Theatre in North London in 1990", is kinda unnecessary. Otherwise, that section is terrific.
Well, this is supposed to be somewhat repetitive since it is a intro/summary to the "Concept and creation" section. The same thing is done above in "Appearances". The bit about artistic director is there to show what McDiarmid was doing between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace since there is this sixteen-year gap between the two films. Dmoon114:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the whole article is comprehensive and successfuly avoids any cruft, I think it still needs a spelling and grammar run-through, as I saw a few too many typos and errors than normal. The only extra suggestion I can offer is maybe adding an image comparing Palpatine to Satan or such. Great work.--Dark Kubrick03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've run the text through a spell checker and there are no common spelling errors (there may still be a couple remaining); I can't speak for the grammar since I hate to proofread. I will print out a paper copy and go over it over the next day or so. Not sure what to do about an image comparing Palpatine to Satan. I haven't run across anything directly showing Palpatine as the devil, just that some academics have compared him to the figure. Dmoon114:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just read through the article and made some minor copy edits here and there. I've also hidden some requests for source citation where it appeared a direct quote was being given. Other than that, here are a few concerns:
A few terms are used that may be unfamiliar to non-fans. Sith, Expanded Universe, and Emperor's Hand. Some of this can be remedied by adding a couple of words of explanation. For example, perhaps in the intro: 'In reality, Palpatine is a powerful lord of the evil Sith sect . . . " or something.
The article asserts that Palpatine is 'a symbol of evil and sinister deception in American popular culture." This is true, but is it only in America? Does the character not have the same associations in other countries and cultures where Star Wars is popular? I'd think that at least Canadian culture would have this association, but maybe not?
Throughout the "Appearances" section, consider changing a few more sentences to describe what authors and directors are doing. For example, instead of "in the 1999 prequel film Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Palpatine is introduced . . . " to "in the 1999 . . . Lucas introduces Palpatine . . . ."
The article is way overlong, and I think the "Appearances" section is to blame. I think it goes into way too much detail about Palpatine's role in relatively minor and secondary books and cartoons. I honestly think you shouldn't be devoting more than a sentence or two to anything but the actual feature films. Maybe Dark Empire or some of the stuff where Palpatine is indeed a central chracter. But he's almost not even in the Clone Wars microseries, yet that cartoon gets its own section! In short, I would take a long, hard look at the "Appearances" section and think about scaling it back by half or more.
I edited down the literature section, but I must disagree about the cartoons and novels. I'm not sure what you mean by secondary (to the films?), but they are important. Palpatine/Darth Sidious is influencing the entire plot of the cartoon (but I only chose a few of the more notable examples). The cartoon is not like some of the obscure video game references that have tried to pop up in some of the articles recently. It is critically acclaimed and has won several major awards. Additionally, almost all of the Star Wars novels have appeared on the New York Times Bestseller list. But you are right concerning the bulk of these sections, and it has been trimmed considerably look more like the literature section of Jabba the Hutt. Dmoon117:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some asides about other characters that do not have any direct pertinence to Palpatine (Vader's struggle between good and evil, Mara Jade's future nuptial).
Some of the quotes from interviews are given in the present tense ("Lucas says"), while others are in the past tense ("McDiarmid remembered"). I think either is acceptable, but try to make it consistent one way or the other.
The quote from John Shelton Lawrence seems to be referring to Star Wars action figures in general, not specifically to the Emperor's. I'd cut it.
The quote is explicitly about Palpatine and Luke Skywalker, you can see the actual page here.
That's it. I think that if the "Appearances" section is trimmed with a hacksaw, this will be a good Featured Article Candidate. Here's to hoping you turn your attention to Chewbacca next! — BrianSmithson09:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article as a featured article, but I realized that is lacks quite a lot to get there. Here are some of the things that have been commented by other users on the featured article page(probably more things need to be improved too, feel free to add comments).
Let's make this a featured article, Eddie Guerrero was a great man and he deserves a great article!
btw, allthough it would be in the spirit of eddie guerrero, please do not lie, cheat and steal when editing this article. Arnemann16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly comprehensive article. I think it should be a featured article. Just need you guys input on what changes need to be made to this article before its ready -- Mercenary2k02:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair amount of interesting info here, but it is hampered by lack of organisation and uninspiring prose. Here are a few comments:
The introduction states a fact regarding the etymology that is not backed up with any reference to an authority. This flaw is repeated throughout the article.
The subheading "Internet usage" within History doesn't really fit. It has never not been part of the Internet. I think it would be better to discuss the progression from ASCII to images. The stuff about converting ASCII to images could be moved to the end Graphical emoticons section.
The Purposes section is too short and repeats stuff from the intro. Just move this text to other bits.
Western Style. Is the reader so dumb that they need to be taught how to view an emoticon? By all means mention that they are meant to be viewed sideways but don't teach.
Basic Examples. This section begins "The following examples" but doesn't include any examples and is followed by a section at the same level covering Variants. This whole section contains unsubstatianted statements such as "often" and "lately". Really?
Variants. The bit on the patent is worth its own section and doesn't belong in this section. The last sentence in this section is a mess and has weasel words.
The organision of the text that discusses variations could be improved. There is repetition. Why not have a grouping discussing variant eyes, noses, mouths, foreheads, etc.
Head and hands emoticons. The examples in the section contradict the section title and the intro sentence.
This game is the quintessential RPG, and the article is in a high state of completion, but could use a boost of quality from you fine folks. So here it is; what keeps this game from being a Featured Article? Thank you much! Judgesurreal77722:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I see, and I can always help if I get some free time ^_^
Footnotes and more references are recommended
I'd say trim the lead section by about 5-10 percent.
I highly recommend reducing the amount of bulleted lists and replacing them with prose.
There also seems to be a format issue with the references. Are they used in specific points in the article? In that case, we'll have to use the ref| and note| system.Deckiller23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:Agree. I don't know if all the pics on one side look good on some of the higher resolutions (I see large white gaps). Deckiller00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)*I'm not crazy about the cover art gallery: without some sort of contextualization, it's pushing the boundaries of fair use, and it's frankly not all that appealing aesthetically. Might I suggest moving the images inline, to the relevant "differences between versions" section? I'm also not mad about the release details table, but it may be a necessary evil: the information is certainly relevant, and I don't think it's a good idea to prose-ify it all, but I don't like the presentation. Ideally, information concerning the WonderSwan Color port of the game should be physically close to section detailing that version, not shunted off at the end of the article.[reply] Beyond that, I think three whole paragraphs on the game's class system is a little excessive, and some of it is veering towards GameFAQs material (tips on what classes are the "best," etc.). In addition, the section is in desperate need of copyediting: a disturbing number of sentences lack subjects ("Can be upgraded...","Not a good fighter...", etc.). Also, there's a minor issue with abbreviations: there are a lot of unexplained abbreviations flying around the article (WSC, PC, GBA, etc.). These should all be spelled out in full the first time they appear, and, if they're going to be abbreviated from then on out, that abbreviation should be identified in paranthesis following the full phrase (in other words, the first time you refer to "WonderSwan Color" follow it with "(WSC)"). Additional footnotes and references as suggested by Deckiller wouldn't hurt, either. By and large, though, the article is looking pretty good, and I particularly like the descriptions of the various remakes and rereleases. – Seancdaug00:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding List of Final Fantasy I artwork: no. Just no. This is far, far worse than before. Including the cover art in the article itself was ugly and a potential WP:FUC sticking point. This, in all likelihood, is a full-blown fair use violation; at the bare minimum, it's in violation of what Wikipedia is not. Articles which serve only as an image gallery are generally not encyclopedic, first of all. Consensus holds that articles which serve only as an image gallery for fair use images are in violation of our copyright policies: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots. We can only justifiably claim fair use for these images if we're using them to illustrate a point about the release of the game. That sort of information belongs in the main article, and if we can't include the images there, we shouldn't use them at all. More broadly, turning problematic sections into their own article does not strike me as an effective way of "improving" anything: I didn't like it when the version differences were spun off into a seperate article at Final Fantasy IV, and I'm not liking it here. Problems with an article are not solved by hiding the offending material in another article, and these subarticles generally do not have enough background information to stand on their own. The encyclopedia is not served by adding to article sprawl. It probably also bears pointing out that the game is not actually called "Final Fantasy I," but that's a minor complaint in any event. – Seancdaug03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Please change it back to the way it was, but as to the issue in either article as to what to do with info like the super specific and hugte Final Fantasy IV versions information, and the large number of images in this article are a mystery to me as to how to solve, besides delete them. If that's our only option, ok, DO IT! :) Judgesurreal77703:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In view of Seancdaug's comments, I think it would be advisable to delete the box art page, are we agreed? As it is, in my humble opinion, they are extraneous and the screenshots serve as a much better comparison of editions than box art in Final Fantasy; also, there are already box art covers featured, do we really need a whole lot more? Thanks much! Judgesurreal77704:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've refactored the entire "differences between releases" section, and tried to work some of the box art back in that way. Some of these images we really don't need, anyway: there's not that much difference between the three different Dawn of Souls covers, and most of the artwork from the various compilation releases can be presented just as well in the article for that compilation. I do think providing at least a selective sampling of box art is important, however: as an encyclopedia, we should spend as much time on the production and marketing of the product as we do on the experience of playing the game itself (if that makes any sense...), and screenshots alone don't do much to address that. – Seancdaug04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found quite a bit of information on this piece of early American history which I hadn't ever heard of. I'm particularly interested in people's thoughts about what kind of images people might find appropriate for the article. (There are several available from the Catholic University Archives, which I might get permission to use under GFDL.) -- MatthewDBA21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nicely-written article. There were several assertions in the "Background" and "Rebecca Reed" that could do with backing up with references. (Such as the statement that "Some authors... have speculated that discussion of the manuscript may have contributed ... riots.") The number of categories is perhaps bordering on the excessive, and some could be pruned as redundant. As for pictures, I'd expect for that period it would all be artwork anyway. So perhaps an image of the convent and possibly something portraying the riots? It might also be helpful to include a map of the area showing the riot locations, if that's possible. Thank you. — RJH16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for. I did prune back the categories (didn't realize there would be so many auto-added), and I added some references for the two sections you're mentioning. I think I have a sketch of the convent before and after the riots; I'll check with Catholic University about any usage restrictions. I'll also see what I can do about a map; I know there are some Wikipedia map resources but I'm not really familiar with them; I'll look into that. — MatthewDBA12:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would like much critisism on making this article up to featured status, or at the very least Good Article status. Basic Information citations are there, but could use some elaboration and perking-up. Any comments are welcomed and would be quite helpful. Also please see the talkpage for more proposed ideas: here. -ZeroTalk05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just some random comments:
Avoid specific numbers if they aren't important. "Three Cyber Elves", "Three element chips"...
The lead should be expanded.
How does the series differ from the other Mega Man series, particularly X, particularly in terms of the plot?
"unaware of his and X's past..." Explain this. Seriously. In fact...
Give some context to the article. Who Zero is, who X is, what things are the same from the other series, things like that.
"But Elpizo is not all that he seems, as Zero soon discovers..." Discovers what? Don't write plot summaries like they would appear on the box. If Elpizo's mystical revelation isn't all that important, don't bother mentioning it at all. If it is, then please tell us what it is.
Last sentence in the notes: "the Zero Series is on hiatus, according to Capcom." Mention this somewhere else, as it seems sufficiently important to go into the article itself. Also, "series" doesn't get capitalized. suggestion: "After the release of MMZ4, Capcom announced it was putting the Zero series on hiatus". Statement also needs citing.
Needs more sections than just gameplay and plot. Anything on the importance or reception of the series?
Inline citations are basically a necessity for good citations, particularly if you're pointing to websites. For example, the release dates of the games should point to the notes that say you got them from GameFAQs.
No references, no fair use rationales, prose is average and needs a good copyedit. The lead doesn't provide a summary of the articles content. Information Factory records could be fleshed out (for instance it doesn't mention Tony Wilson, or the later fim about the scene 24 Hour Party People).--nixie03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote nearly all of what's there now. I'm happy that it's a decent article, but would have to say that there's some substantiation needed to it. A couple of points to make if anyone's thinking of editing the article. Firstly, when I first started revising the article there had been some confusion in it over the difference between Madchester and Factory records. For those not familiar with Madchester, the film 24 Hour Party People is about Factory Records. It's a great film, but it isn't (and doesn't hold itself out to be) in any sense about Madchester. Secondly, if anyone can add substantiation to the article, then that would be great, but please don't go through adding "Some people say that..." or such like. Ten times better to leave it alone. Glad to hear that my prose is "average", though - perfect for an encyclopedia. --Vjam19:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, interesting subject. Some copyedits are needed:
"ABMB is a song by Mariah Carey for her sixth album is missing a verb ("performed by" on her sixth) or "co-written" or something.
"The mid-tempo pop number describes her handling a breakup well" ("describes her handling of a breakup" might be better)
"as she knows that although" is awkward, drop the although
"she and her ex" I think "ex" is slang, is there a better word?
Unlike its predecessors, "Fantasy" and "One Sweet Day", (add "which debuted at number one, ABMB debuted at number two and ascended after four weeks, staying at number one for two weeks.
You might add more information about the chart stay and position into the intro if this is a notable part of song's history.
I'd like to improve this article to FA status, and I welcome comments, especially from speakers of Appalachian English who have had some formal training in linguistics. Brian G. Crawford23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It needs more sources and has too many small paragraphs/lists. Instead of lists and small paragraphs, the text should be reorganized into well written prose wherever possible. Pick an organization that lays out the material clearly in full paragraphs. The most important facts should be cited directly to the most reliable sources available for them. Where are all the examples from? Original research, or from the listed sources? Also the lead section is too long. If you read through the links from Wikipedia:What is a featured article, you'll see the lead section recommendation is for 3-4 paragraphs. My opinion is that you should also decide which presentation is better, are you going to focus on differences with the general American dialect or are you simply going to describe Appalachian? Finally, see User:Taxman/Featured article advice if you want more suggestions. - TaxmanTalk23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Looks mostly good/featurable at first glance. Please delineate the references used/cited in footnotes in a separate "References" section. If none of the "Further reading" sources were used to build the article, then you can also recreate that section. You should use "Patel" (his last name) throughout the article, not his first name (see WP:MOSBIO). Also, the positive/approving tone of the article needs to be somewhat neutralized. I've done some copyedits as an example of these and other hints. I'll post other comments later. Saravask01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great job so far! Here are some of my thoughts and suggestions:-
Maybe this has been discussed in the past, but I just wanted to be sure - per convention, Indian personalities are mentioned by name and not title. Given the tremendous progress this article has made, are we too far down the path to move this article to Vallabhai Patel instead? Just a thought.
Per Saravask, refer to him as Patel and not Vallabhai or Sardar Patel in the article
There is an amount of verbiage and sentiment contained in the article that could be construed as being POV. I think the language should be toneddown somewhat to present a more dispassionate, comprehensive picture of Sardar Patel.
Per the point above, "Congress boss" should be changed to President of Indian National Congress, or a similar title
Appropriate in-line citations should be added to the Fighting for Independence and Personal Life sections.
"..Patel would be protective of his integrity and reputation as far as possible." How do we know this?
"Historians consider that Vallabhbhai Patel's most important contributions cameto have occured in the period between 1946 and 1948"
"when over 5,000 people were killed in violence instigated by Jinnah" Do we know Jinnah instigated the violence. Sources will be needed, in the absense of which, this phrase may come across as POV.
(ironically, he was often portrayed with an anti-Muslim bias) We should not opine on behalf the the reader. Let us delete that phrase.
We will need to incorporate criticisms of Sardar Patel's political policies and his handling of the integration of India to present a more balanced image of the Sardar. Furthermore, phrases such as graciously accepted, raucous welcome etc should be done away with.
On the whole, very interesting read. Content wise, we will need to incorporate criticisms of Patel's policies, etc. Structure wise, we will have to go through the article with a fine comb to restructure/delete sentences that could give the impression of being POV/non-encyclopedic during FAC. Good luck! Since most of the work that needs to be done now is structure related, I will start helping with toning down the article. I think, quality wise, this is right up there and stands a great chance at becoming FA. AreJay02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some observations
This is one of my first reviews, so its more of an observation as I am myself not sure of the norms. Please go through them. If they are not relevant, ignore them.
The wikipedia policy on wikilinking years and dates is that they should be made into a link only when clicking on them will give some additional information to the reader. Here, I see that all dates and years of his birth and death have been made links, while the linked pages don't even carry any mention of him. For example, neither 31 October, nor 1875 mentions that Sardar Patel was born on that day, even though it can be added in a few seconds.
Other language pronunciations/spellings have to be provided to guide the readers. But here, I feel they have been overdone with 4 languages. The first useful word to a casual reader comes in the 4th line.
Congress Boss seems to be informal usage. Wouldn't it be better if it were replaced by As Congress President or Congress Presidentship.
Initially I was convinced with the actual hosting page, i.e. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, but after going through the template of Indian Independence Movement, I began to think otherwise. As far as I know, the Wikipedia policy is that the actual page should be hosted at the name by which the person is mostly known for. That is, what is the most common word that the user will type so as to reach the page in question. This is because it is suggested that the text at the top saying "Redirected from ..." should be encountered be least number of users. Now the template at the bottom suggests that his most common name is Sardar Patel. So shouldn't the original page be also at Sardar Patel.
In the first paragraph, Satyagraha is defined as non-violent mass civil disobedience, while in Satyagraha, it is defined as any effort to discover, discern, obtain or apply Truth. This definition clearly does not imply Civil Disobedience explicitly. While the satyagraha in Gujarat may have been civil disobedience, the phrase can confuse the readers that all satyagraha involve civil disobedience.
Can we add some more photos to the article? The job may be tough.But from my experience of watching other people going through Wikipedia, a long article without a considerable number of images has a tendency of being subject to non-adherence, I mean people often start to skip reading, even abort reading, long articles without images!!This may sound trivial, but I think collecting some interesting images could br really beneficial for the article.
Also, as per Ambuj, the translation of the name in 4 languages in the very first para seems inhibitory.Bye.--Dwaipayanc20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Lothal, the subject of this article has been widely written about. As such, I believe it would be prudent to look at sources other than Rajmohan Gandhi as well. For example, India wins freedom by Maulana Azad is one. imo, works by his contemporaries should be given prominence. --Gurubrahma15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured I'd use this space for pre FAC comments. It is very good of course. The only larger problem I see is it seems to promote the view that the indepedence was right and the British were wrong. Instead it should state the facts, which it does in large part, but not enough in places. It could probably be fixed with a fairly limited number of rewordings. The rest is details of wording, and I've left some comments in the text as that seemed easier than copying here and indicating where in the text the problems were. Also, in many places it refers to him being arrested for short periods, but not much explanation if there were any charges and often not explaning why he was let go. Why so many short periods of imprisonment? I didn't get to finish copyediting in detail, I'll see if I can't soon, but it's still ready for FAC once what I've pointed out has been addressed. - TaxmanTalk15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Born and raised in the countryside of Gujarat, Vallabhbhai Patel was a self-educated, forceful and successful Gujarati lawyer when he was inspired by the work and philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi." - That sentence is bit awkward. Hmm I don't have suggestions to improve it though lol. Maybe replace "when" with "who was inspired by..."
"becoming the most influential leader in Gujarat" - someone will probably question the "most", especially as Gandhiji was also based in Ahmedabad.
Early Life
"Patel helped his father in the fields, and bimonthly kept a day-long fast, abstaining from food and water.[2]" - why did he keep a day-long fast? religious reasons?
"Later, Patel called for Jhaverba — his wife, whom he married at young age —" Where was she? when were they married? I am guessing it was child marriage and he called her from her family? Might want to add that.
"His wife bore him two children — Mani, a girl in 1904, and Dahya, a boy in 1906." - That sentence sounds terribly dry. I would suggest rephrasing "his wife bore him" with something simple like "She gave birth to two children."
"Major surgical operation" - Do we know what she was having major surgical operation for?
"Patel also made way for his brother Vithalbhai Patel to travel to England in place of him, on his own saved money and opportunity. The episode occurred as the tickets and pass arrived in the name of "V. J. Patel", and arrived at his brother's home, who bore the same initials. Patel did not hesitate to make way for his elder brother's ambition before his own, and funded his trip as well." This is tad confusing. He sent two brothers or are we still talking about the same brother in the last sentence?
Fighting for Independence
"...Patel left his profitable practice, his large house and life of respect and comfort for the frugal living and hardship of the freedom struggle." This is not very encyclopedic. profitable practice, his large house, etc. etc. is too long winded and they all say the same thing.
"Patel had initially made fun of Gandhi's habits and points of view in front of friends like Ganesh Vasudev Mavlankar. But Patel was instantly transformed when Gandhi proposed a demonstration to protest the arrest of Annie Besant, instead of a signed petition." - a) both sentences should be merged b) for some reason chosing to do a demonstration instead of a signed petition does not seem like an action that would transform someone overnight. Maybe rephrase? Was he really transfored by that single action or was it more of a "oh, maybe this guy should be taken seriously" and then over time (as the next sentence seems to suggest) he became his follower?
Satyagraha in Kheda, Borsad and Bardoli
"Patel's first major participation was during the Kheda struggle." - I think it should be rephrased as "...first major participation in the independence movement was ... Kheda struggle in Gujarat."
"Asking for one Gujarati activist to volunteer full-time to the Kheda cause, Patel raised his hand and stood up." - This needs to be rephrased to a more active form: "When Gandhi asked for a Gujarati activist to volunteer full-time to the kheda cause, ..." Note: reason for adding in Gujarat in previous sentence was to add a context to "for a Gujarati activist."
Sarabhai family needs a stub for now - I will try to get to it tomorrow.
A line needs to be added at end of the first paragraph that tells us what was the action that was going to be taken (I am guessing it was not to pay taxes) to better connect with the next paragraph.
I did not see anything about Borsad in this paragraph. Also their was lot of general things that he did at the end of the second paragraph that does not fit in this section. Furthermore, I think the section name should be made more general and meaningful - currently it is a bit of a lazy heading. It should be something that summarizes his rise as a leader (in Gujarat) - bad example would be "Leader in making." After the section name is changed, the general causes at end of 2nd paragraph can be moved to the end of the section.
Thank you for your very valuable insight. A lot of these errors crept in becoz the source has been one book - a key problem I must rectify - and of my own admiration of Patel. I will correct all of these mistakes. Rama's Arrow13:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image
I feel that the lead image of the article is very hazy and stressful to eyes. Even if it is necessary to use it, use it later in the article, and not in the lead. Seeing it in the lead will be a big turn off for the reader. I don't know why the earlier image was replaced, but if the reason wasn't a major issue, I prefer that the images be swapped. The earlier one was perfect for the lead. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I added this pic to the lead image becoz it is a beautiful portrait of Patel in his prime. I understand your concerns about haziness, but I'd prefer to let it stand for some time until more feedback is obtained. Rama's Arrow18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"he lanced a painful boil without hesitation, even as the barber supposed to do it trembled." —needed? Is it something legendary?
"He made way for his brother Vithalbhai Patel to travel to England in place of him, on his own saved money and opportunity. The episode occurred as the tickets and pass Patel had applied for arrived in the name of "V. J. Patel," and arrived at Vithalbhai's home, who bore the same initials. Patel did not hesitate to make way for his elder brother's ambition before his own, and funded his trip as well"— same brother or different?
"Patel also cared for a personal friend suffering from Bubonic plague when it swept the state."— can it be enlarged as "...swept the state of Gujarat, in the year..."
"Patel led the satyagraha in Nagpur in 1923 against a law banning the raising of the Indian flag" what was the Indian flag in 1923? The Vikhaji Kama flag? Or Calcutta Flag? or something else? wikilink if needed.
Gandhi-Irwin pact - wikilink.
Round Table Conference in London - wikilink properly
"Congress's" - is it grammatically correct. I am weak at grammar. Please check.
"When World War II broke out, Patel supported Nehru's decision to withdraw the Congress from central and provincial legislatures, contrary to Gandhi's advice, but India would be divided in its response to the war." confusing line. Break up?
"Arguing that the British were not interested only in the defence of their interests and not India, Patel stressed that the campaign start without any delay." - confusing line.
Independence and integration
"When the British mission proposed plans for transfer of power, there was considerable opposition to both within the Congress." what both?
Junagadh affair- mention some dates, when it happened.
The last portion is very nice. But, Rama's Arrow, as I told you in the meassage, the paragraphs on Patel's early life needs work. It needs to be summarised, and also some tone down.--Dwaipayanc19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image
I think someone else mentioned this too - despite being an image that many have probably not seen, its quality is rather bad. I would definitely use the more common image of vallabhbhai in the lead. I am not even sure if this image should be used anywhere else in the article but definitely not in the lead! --Blacksun15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"But Patel did not help Nehru when he had purposely bypassed him, only later to need his help. Nehru attempted to oppose the will of a majority of Congressmen by suggesting that Governor General Chakravarti Rajgopalachari become India's first President. Nehru's arbitrariness and imposition angered the party, which backed its favorite, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Patel did not help Nehru to win his way, and Prasad became the President of India in 1950." I dont like how the lead sentence is phrased in this paragraph. Its confusing and suffers from weak sentence structure. Also, instead of saying "patel did not help nehru to win his way" you can simply say "However, Patel opposed Nehru's candidate" or something.
Again, I dont like the section heading. In general, I dont think section headings should have an "and" in them. This one can be simply changed to Relations with Nehru as it is mostly about two of them or if you think it is necessary to add Gandhi's death it can be Relations with Nehru after Gandhi's death
Also, I think their are some images in the article that have no real captioning except "sardar vallabhbhai." If the image has no other meaning besides that they should be removed. Their is an image that is making the "leading india' section heading indent to the right. This can be rectified by minor edition the image. I would do it but I think that image can just be removed from there and placed as the lead image. Otherwise, I think that article is ready for FA status. I dont think referencing is a big issue at this stage as their are plenty of other references besides Patel a life now. --Blacksun19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leading India
"pledge both India and Pakistan to a commitment to protect each other's minorities. Patel, amongst others saw this as appeasement.[56] Syama Prasad Mookerjee and K.C. Neogy, two Bengali ministers resigned from the Cabinet, and Nehru became a hated figure in West Bengal. The pact was immediately in jeopardy"
Some rephrases I would suggest: "However, Patel saw this as appeasement."
Hi to All - For May 1st, I request your review, advice and help in improving this article. I will start an intensive review and revision of the article on May 2nd, and send it to FAC on May 3rd. I thank everyone who has given their time to review this article, and I will incorporate their advice before finishing work on this article. Thank you, Rama's Arrow00:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll be adding my comments as I read through the article
In the fight for independence section, it says Patel volunteered to lead the struggle in Kheda, but only after intense personal contemplation. Can we explain why? (In one sentence, or perhaps as an addendum to the existing sentence)
When we talk about Patel stepping down from the election of the Congress presidency, we talk about Patel not having Nehru's "assets". Is this why Nehru won favor with Gandhi? If this is just an opinion, we can still include it, however we will need to add a qualifier (with appropriate citation) indicating that it is an opinion.
Appropriate citation is required to support the statement that violence on Direct Action Day was instigated by Jinnah. Since you wrote the Jinnah FA, I'm sure you'll have sufficient literature to support this claim!
I think some more criticism of Patel and his policies can be incorporated into the article to give it some more balance. His clashes with Nehru can be further elaborated upon. Also, criticism of his policy to annex Hyderabad should be incorporated. General criticism of his modus operendi vis-a-vis political integration can also be incorporated.
"Iron fist in a velvet glove" — in-line reference needed
Can we include a "Legacy" section. What legacy has Patel left behind apart from obviously, a united and independent country?
On the whole this is a very well written article. I think the article can benefit from copyediting — grammar, tone, eleminating peacock words, etc. I'd like to volunteer for this particular task, let me know if this is ok by you.
Also, we will need to use British spelling for India-related articles.
Hi all - I'm sorry to renege on my earlier promises, but I need a little more time to prepare this article fully for FAC. I will finish the work on May 11th.Rama's Arrow02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I know I'm a little late for Peer Review, but I had a few comments about the article anyway that I have been wanting to make for a while:
1. Try and tone down the style, which comes across as a little pro-Patel in the beginning. The introduction repeats the words of the introduction of Political Integration of India, which were deeply problematic. The words 'weld' and even 'nation' will leave the article open to needless dispute. I think that entire third paragraph can be dispensed with, and a reference made merely to his position in the cabinet; his leadership in the integration of the princely states; and his liberal position on economic affairs. I am surprised that the disagreements with Nehru about economic and religious policy do not figure in the introduction. That is after all the basis of Sardar Patel's continuing popularity.
2. Citations. Your citations are OK in certain respects, but other claims are passed by without referencing. In particular, nowhere does Rajmohan Gandhi or indeed, Sarvepalli Gopal in his biography of NEhru - say that the 'imposition' of Rajaji angered the party. Indeed, Sumit Sarkar claims that Patel actively campaigned for Dr Prasad because he was more sympathetic to Patel's hard line on Pakistan. There are several other such claims: "Patel, exasperated and" not wanting to battle Nehru, asked Gandhi to relieve him as he did not have Nehru's youth and popularity; he knew also that an open political battle would hurt India." (We do not have access to this information; this is pure speculation, and should be labelled as such.) "Syama Prasad Mookerjee and K.C. Neogy, two Bengali ministers resigned from the Cabinet, and Nehru became a hated figure in West Bengal." (!!) About Kashmir: "He did not want foreign interference in a bilateral affair." (That will get a lot of people on here saying that its a trilateral afair or whatever. Avoid.) "He was also instrumental in the founding the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. For his defence of Indian civil servants from political attack, he is known as the "patron saint" of India's services." (You have to cite this. I have never heard it before. Also, how is he the 'founder' of the IAS? The IAS took over the processes, selection procedures and promotion bases from the ICS seamlessly. Ditto for the IPS and the IP. To talk of a 'founder' is very misleading. And if there were 'founders', they were the senior bureaucrats of the time, and not the politicians. The Rediff article you cite here is useless.) There are many more I could come up with, but you understand the problem by now.
3. Legacy section. Most major leaders should have one. Other than as a Gujarati icon and in administering the incorporation of the princely states, how did Patel leave his mark on India? What do Rajmohan G and Bipin Chandra say about it?
I sincerely and deeply regret being unable to finish work on this article's FA drive. My fellow Wikipedians, I'm very sorry. I am a big fan of Patel, and literally his student. I want to do this for him, and I swear by Rama to make this the greatest article on Wikipedia on May 15th. Please be a little more patient as I prepare to finish the work. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow01:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha its ok, man. Get it done when their is time. No need to keep giving dates and then feeling guilty when you cant make it. --Blacksun17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it will have to be stronger than that - it is high sin indeed to so flagrantly and carelessly violate the sanctity of a vow given for Rama. However, I'm happy to report that the work is almost over - a few hours of copyediting is necessary, dat's all. I'll put this article on FAC very, very soon. Rama's Arrow08:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said to Nirav on his talk page, I have gone through the article. Here are some more comments. I have only been able to go through half the article yet. It is getting quite late (3:51 AM!), so I think I should go to sleep before some members of my house start waking up! Here goes:
Fighting for independence - Satyagraha across Gujarat - There is something missing in the line "The revenue refusal was stronger than in Kheda, and many sympathy satyagrahas were undertaken across Gujarat." towards the end of the section. Where was the revenue refusal stronger than in Kheda?
Leading the congress-Yeravda Central jail could be wikified.
Quit India- "...full support to Britain if it promised Indian independence at the end of the war". Indian independence needs to be changed to "independence to India" or something of that sort.
Independence and integration-The first line should be "Gandhi had declared Nehru to BE his "successor"..."
Cabinet misson and partition - "When the British mission proposed plans for transfer of power, there was considerable opposition to both within the Congress" What does "both" refer to? Transfer of power? But that is only one thing. Should it be both plans - as explained in the next two sentences? Also in the same paragraph "...Patel also engaged the British enjoys and obtained assurances from the British enjoys that...". Should it be envoys? Or is there something called enjoys? In the next paragraph Jinnah could be unwikified as he has already been wikified earlier. Later on "I fully appreciate the fears of our brothers from [the Muslim-majority areas]". Why those [ and ] brackets? In the same quote chaprasis could be linked for others to understand what a chaprasi is.
I must briefly postpone the FAC to Sunday - I am anxious to tie up all loose ends, and I know there are some important issues to iron out here. Rama's Arrow03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could have solved some issues myself, but am too tired. My eyes are drooping and hence would not help meet Rama's Arrow's need for fresh eyes to look at the article. I promise to read further tomorrow. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To get non-philosophers to read and comment on the intelligibility of the article, and make creative improvements. Lucidish03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a brief glance I can see a few problems. First I noticed some jargon that wasn't linked so that users could look it up (eg. "program" in the first sentence"). I think the referencing leaves a little to be desired: you can still use Harvard but do this within the cite templates. Finally, there are no pictures or diagrams. --OldakQuill11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Oldak. In addition, Wikipedia:Manual of style should be payed more attention to: section titles are rather too long, citations should be renamed references, there is a red category, bolded text should be unbolded, references need ISBN/ISNN, and from the middle of the article there are entire sections with almost no ilinks (1 or 2).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love some comments on this article. I hope it can become a featured list (which have their own criteria). Unlike many lists of "Famous people with epilepsy" you may find in books or on the web, this one has references for every person and does not include speculative retrospective diagnoses. Colin°Talk22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; there is no need for "believed to" since the inclusion criteria are quite strict. I'd prefer List of people who have epilepsy. To quote The GuardianStyle Guide: "seizures are epileptic, people are not … we do not define people by their medical condition". This does leave the problem that the title is present-tense, whereas nearly half the people on the list are dead. Also some of those who are alive do not have epilepsy any more – childhood epilepsy for example. Does anyone have any suggestions of a way to include all these? List of people who have or had epilepsy sounds a bit clumsy. I think it may be best, for avoiding confusion, to postpone any rename till after the peer-review period. --Colin°Talk23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an epileptologist by profession, and I have been watching this article since its inception. I created it with the name 'List of people believed to have epilepsy' for two reasons: 1) "Epileptic" is not a noun; it is an adjective, for exactly the reason the Guardian Style Guide listed above states. 2) "Believed to have" sidesteps two issues; a) the past/present tense issue, and b) the issue that the diagnosis of epilepsy is rarely made with perfect certainty (I'd argue that, before 1930 or so, it *could not* be made with certainty.)
I have very little to recommend to the article as it presently stands, as I've made what contributions I had to make already; but I will be watching this peer review with avid interest. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a look at the page, and its talk page. I was initially opposed to this page on the grounds you mention, and posted voluminously about that on its talk page. After that criticism, it evolved into one of the best-sourced pages on Wikipedia. If I had to nominate a page as an example of how to use sources to build an encyclopedic article, I'd pick this one. In my opinion, it should be linked to from WP:NOR.
The key point here is found in WP:V. The contents of articles don't need to be true - they just have to be sourced. Asserting that people have epilepsy is in most cases unverifiable. Asserting that a reputable source has published their beliefs that a person had epilepsy is an editorial task, namely a task involving the compilation of such assertions and their sources. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to harp on about the title, but my first reaction on seeing it was 'VfD'. It's not really a VfD list, of course, but it's not a good first impression. Anyway, I would offer List of people with epilepsy or (if we're worried about not being 100% sure, which I don't think we need to be as long as we're sure enough to put them on the list) List of people diagnosed with epilepsy. Markyour words01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hairs that name would split have already been split on the article's talk page. The controversy revolves around who is to be considered qualified to render such a diagnosis. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pondering on the name issue overnight (in ignorance of the above comments) and came up with the same argument for "believed" as Ikkyu2's point 2b above. I'm not convinced about the 2a argument but I'm no English scholar. There is a difference between a physician's "I believe you have epilepsy", which is a judgement made by someone that we trust to be wise about the issue, and the lay use of "believe" as a contrast with "know" where the purpose is to indicate (somewhat) ignorant speculation or doubt about the facts. I think this is Pagrashtak's point - there are other lists of people that openly admit speculation. This list can never be as certain as List of amputees, for example, but is a lot more certain than List of people speculated to have been syphilitic. You may be interested in the section "The Accuracy of Contemporary Diagnosis" on the talk page.
Ikkyu2 makes a comment about "a reputable source has published their beliefs that a person had epilepsy". I would not have used a reference that said "XYZ was believed to have epilepsy", no matter how much I respected the author. However, if a respected source (e.g. a biographer) said "XYZ had epilepsy" then I would allow that. I would assume from that language that the author wasn't speculating or working from hearsay, but I also accept that it is unlikely that they have read the person's medical records. My point is that just because we are relying on other sources doesn't mean we have to use the word "believed" – otherwise Wikipedia would be full of it. If a good source says "XYZ was diagnosed with epilepsy", "ABC had epilepsy" or "I have epilepsy" then I think we can repeat that assertion.
I note existence of the List of notable people diagnosed with dyslexia and wonder if Mark's suggestion of List of people diagnosed with epilepsy would satisfy both the physician's uncertainty and the tense issue. I would have thought that the implication was that a physician made the diagnosis even if this is rarely stated explicitly in any source. A "diagnosis" by a lay person, or one done retrospectively, isn't a diagnosis.
Having said all that, I am content to live with the current title. It doesn't have enough problems for me to insist on a change, and it does have its own merits. Ikkyu2 created it and has strong feelings for his choice of words so that has some importance here.
I'm not going to pack up my toys and go home if we find a better title; I did want to explain how the title got to be what it was. I originally created it as 'Famous people with epilepsy,' clearly not so good; I moved it later after a lot of thought and discussion on the talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to get some comments about the content? Should we include nationalities for everyone or not at all (I personally think it might make it tedious to read)? Do you think that there could be more said in the introduction. I wondered about a paragraph contrasting past behaviour (keeping it hidden) with today (where the epilepsy charities encourage famous people to be open and supportive). What points might get it rejected as a Featured List? --Colin°Talk09:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that cases of historical or retrospective diagnoses should stay out of this list; as long as it is made clear (perhaps with details for individual cases) why such diagnoses must be considered speculative, they could give some more insight into historical perceptions. One other point: the entry for Neil Young mentions that he apparently learned to control his epilepsy via "mind over matter", rather than taking anticonvulsant drugs. That should at least be discussed critically, or perhaps better be kicked out entirely. We already have too much quackery of all sorts, and statements like this could possibly discourage people from following their neurologists' advice, which might be a deadly decision. Generally, a very fine list and worthy to be a featured one. Kosebamse16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I'll see if I can find some alternative epilepsy-related info on Neil Young.
Wrt: retrospective diagnosis. There are some who are unhappy to see those two words together in a sentence! This is discussed on both this article's talk page and earlier on Talk:Epilepsy. I believe the current article is a list of facts. A "list of people speculated to have epilepsy" would be a list of opinions. We can include opinions in Wikipedia only if we attribute them to someone, ideally by quoting them. We must also take care whose opinon we care to quote (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). However, a list of opinons isn't as interesting, useful or encyclopedic as a list of facts. It is a bit like "Barry Norman's list of dead-cert Oscar winning movies for 2006" compared with "78th Academy Awards" --Colin°Talk20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the changing perception of epilepsy, the diagnostic concepts and the evolution of today's idea what epilepsy is and what is not could be illustrated with historical examples; however this list may not be the best place to do this and I would not push it if there are relevant arguments against. Kosebamse20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe epilepsy in real articles. This is just another list of people who might have a certain disease. What's there to peer review? Please stop wasting PR-space on this.
Your comments have been useful: they indicate (to me at least) that the title is not giving a good impression and fails to accurately define the inclusion criteria for the list. --Colin°Talk12:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
let me list suggestions/queries relating to content so far to be addressed: (this is meant as a checklist for Italo; pls look into/reply to)
try to integrate dates into sentences rather than adding them as an afterthought (should this be done?)
image copyright status: needs to be addressed satisfactorily prior to a 2nd fa candidacy (if that happens)(ok, so we'll worry abt this and abt final copyedit later)
lead: not enough : being rewritten
citation: will recheck for any missing citations.
specific concerns:
regarding POV
Are Descriptions of "high distinction" POV ?
Are "Opinions and Assessment of the presidency, issues with BJP and other stuff" "written in a neutral tone with adequate supply of references and facts."?
There is no information in the article on KR Narayanan's critics and opponents, both past and present. What are their opinons on his presidency and his career in the IFS?
There are only a couple of instances of criticism of his policies in the article, and both are terminated quite abruptly without elaboration. I find it hard to believe that Narayanan, as a senior member in India's political circles, did not have his policies criticized or questioned and that most criticisms had caste-ist undertones. You will need to research and elaborate on that.
His issues with the BJP towards the end of his tenure; criticisms of his presidency, etc should be discussed. Racial, caste-based criticisms need not be incorporated, but it should be noted in the article that he was frequently the target political adversaries because of his minority status.
I don't see much criticism of Narayanan's actions/speeches. What is critics assessment of his actions, his bid for re-election, his decision on Bihar President's rule? What was the BJP's rationale - you include Narayanan's personal criticism of the BJP, and the BJP's backtracking on Narayanan's nomination. It paints an unnecessarily bad pic of the BJP. This is also for many people, an inherent POV becoz there is no accomodation for Narayanan's critics.You must include an alternate assessment of Narayanan wherever.
but please try to inculcate any data on whether he failed at some of his objectives, of the BJP's rationale, of his shortcomings/assets in relation to other Presidents.
Its important to talk about the Bihar President's Rule issue, the communal riots, etc. a bit more.
reqiring Rewrite/clarify/better citation
there are many sentences that seem to glowingly discuss Narayanan's actions and legacy. President Narayanan's identification of problems of the Dalit community, of their oppresion, need direct citation.
I'm referring to the passage in "Concerns for Social and Economic justice and Communal tolerance" - "President Narayanan spoke on various occasions..." I think you need to elucidate the issues better - one gets the impression that adivasis and Dalits are in a miserable situation in India. If you say "oppression," "displacement," link to articles that describe the topics, or to sources. Re-write the section to explain better
asking you to be direct, succint in writing about it and giving sources.
Narayanan's personal assertions, in his speeches and private thoughts, need to be supplemented with outside views and facts.
Another round of editing, after that maybe invite a few more ppl to PR
(God, this is getting nowhere, more hard work, more time than expected, all for what?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pournami (talk • contribs)
Hi Sahodaran...I truly understand your frustration, but trust me — there's light at the end of the tunnel. With all the points/suggestions incorporated, this article will be ready for FAC. Many of the points summarized above can be tackled through one or two sources. Given that Presidency in India is ceremonial at best, it is hard to find criticism of policies, etc that can be directly attributed to an Indian President. This can be defended during FAC. If something is not there, it's not there, we cannot be expected to invent sources just to satisfy NPOV. However, let us try to find whatever we can on the criticisms issue and incorporate that into the article. I will go through and copyedit for POV this afternoon. Hopefully this should ease some of your frustration with regards to the direction of this article. Thanks AreJay17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AreJay,thanks a lot for your support,but seems that question to God was written by Pournami and she forgot to sign it.I dont think that this is getting nowhere,AAMOF I am enjoying all of it..:).Thank you once again!!--Sahodaran03:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Italo's responses to suggestions so far
Thanks, AreJay and Rama's Arrow, for your help and the nice comments and suggestions. I have some constraints on my time at present, hence I was not available as I would have liked to be. Pournami and Sahodaran have compiled a summary, which agrees with my own independent summary, so I think it is accurate.
Bias: I feel this is the chief concern expressed in the reviews, and I think this should be resolved first: Please read through the following explanations/suggestions:
(1) 'high distinction' : I feel this is fair. I am not aware that any one disputes that KRN's diplomatic career was distinguished. Chandrabhan Prasad's and Gopalkrishna Gandhi's obits, Hindu editorial, Manmohan Singh's condolence message, all support this claim, I feel (They can be cited if needed). That KRN was posted to China and the USA (the second after calling him back from retirement) also supports this assertion (even without going into the details of his achievements there); these are arguably the most difficult ambassador positions in the IFS (and I think no one else has been assigned to both posts). KRN was retained as Ambassador to China under Morarji Desai too, so there seems to been no partisanship in his high postings. If you feel this asseertion has been disputed by some, then we can consider removing the claim, or attributing it to sources. The details of his diplomatic career lack context in this article, I feel, and are perhaps better suited to the article on Sino-Indian relations; also, I don't have any hard references to discuss them.
(2) Opinions and assessment of Presidency : In my edits, I have thought it best to put in only facts, and to leave the readers to form their own opinions. I don't feel a comprehensive assessment has been attempted in the article. If there are specific points of concern, please continue with more detailed remarks. I have been particularly concerned to avoid biased language myself. I have also tried to attribute all the controversial/biased statements included. If you feel there is more to be done, please make specific suggestions and help.
(3) 'independent and assertive' : I feel this is not a biased phrase. In any case, that was not the intention; what is attempted is to summarise the nature of his actions in a factual manner. KRN was indeed independent and assertive, I think (as his actions described in the article reveal); what could be a matter of dispute, I think, is whether he was right or wrong to be so. It is also mentioned that other Presidents had not followed the same course generally. However, no opinion has been given about which course is right. When writing a lead summarising his presidency, something of this nature has to be said, I feel. I have attempted to state it in a neutral manner; if you feel it should be improved/changed, do make more specific suggestions.
(4) 'proved invaluable' : The additions suggested have been made.
(5) Criticism in the IFS: I did not come across any professional criticism.
(6) Criticism of the Presidency: This is very difficult to come by, as Rama's Arrow remarked, especially if one wants to include relevant criticism by relevant attributable sources. There are several plausible reasons, I think:
(a) Presidency has generally been considered a sinecure, and not much of public interest. (KRN was different, but it was not easy to change the notion of the Preseident in public discourse so soon.)
(b) The President is not a politician or policy-maker per se, but somewhat a consitutional trustee and guide of the political system, with a clearly circumscribed role to play; so the usual canons of political criticism fail. In particular, criticisms of his actions need reference to subtle constitutional points.
As far as I understand, most criticisms were fuelled by partisan considerations, by politicians who had felt KRN had not acceded to their wishes. In fact, criticism by politicians is suspect for this very reason.
Scholarly criticism by commentators have tended to give KRN good reviews. They have noted only a few points against Narayanan:
(a) He was excessively concerned about some judicial appointments (reference to K. G. Balakrishnan's appointment).
(b) His speech while receiving Clinton departed from the Government line; this was improper.
(Both by A. G. Noorani, in his assessment of KRN, already in the references).
I did not include this because these issues were discussed only in passing in the article until recently. I think these can be included as fair criticism now, where these events are now dealt with.
In relation with other Presidents, it is mentioned in the article that other Presidents has followed different procedures for appointing a PM. This shows a divergence of opinion. Perhaps this is not an evident criticism as the article stands now; so I suggest the following:
When KRN departed from this line, N. S. Reddy had died, and S. D. Sharma was already in ill-health and not involved in any public issues. R. Venkataraman had, however, been in good health. RV had stated that each President should decide for himself how to exercise their discretion. However, he stood by his own procedure, and stated that KRN should have invited Sonia Gandhi (second largest party) after the Vajpayee government had been voted out. It can perhaps help to cite this and say that RV had expressed dissent.
On other issues, scholarly criticism is lacking.
(a) KRN's 2000 Republic day speech can be considered as being against market policies. The Editorial by the Indian Express seems to reflect some of the views of critics, and could be included as a criticism. (I had not been able to locate this link before. Since we now have it thanks to Pournami, there is no difficulty.) It is also likely that the Government line was different on this matter.
(b) KRN's refusal to impose President's rule was criticised in both instances; however, it was interested parties, Mulayam Singh and L. K. Advani, who voiced this; they claimed they disagreed with KRN's reading of law in the matter, but did not go into the details. (These can be verified from the referenced reports on these issues.) Commentators did not fault KRN on these decisions, as far as I could see.
(c) KRN's speeches against Presidential form of governance and stability-oriented changes in the constitution were not taken well by the Vajpayee government. Commentators tended to see the President as fulfilling his role as a guardian of the constitution. Vajpayee sought to hush up the divergence that had surfaced, by clarifying that the basic structure would not be tampered with.
(d) Communal riots: The allegations made by KRN are important (and have been communicated to the Commission investigating the riots). I think it should be included in KRN's article. Vajpayee did not comment on the allegations. It does make the discussion one-sided, but I don't see what could be done about this.
(e) The BJP's opinion on KRN has not been voiced in an attributable form. Throughout his Presidency, the BJP refrained from explicit criticism of KRN, probably because of political etiquette. However, when discussions were on to find a successor, the BJP still did not break their silence. In the report titled `Elusive consensus' (references) this is detailed out. They claimed to oppose KRN's second term because of a precedent of no President having got it (Rajendra Prasad had a second term though). They also pointed to his ill health. However, the report says that privately speaking, senior leaders (under anonymity) admitted the main reason to be that KRN was not in tune with the BJP ideology. KRN in his interview seems to point to the same reason (This can be attributed, but is KRN's opinion of the BJP's reasons). Mulayam Singh's opinion is reported to be influenced by his dissent on the question of President's rule. That the BJP strongly objected to a second term for KRN is however, not in doubt, and is evidenced by the elaborate manoeuvres they carried out in the candidature stage. (This has been discussed in the article, neutrally, I think.)
As rightly pointed out, there is a gap in the discussion here. That the BJP denied KRN a second term is evident, but the reasons are not [in a scholarly fashion]. I hope from the above that there is a difficulty in writing about this in the article, unless one does original research. What I feel can be done to address this (without original research) is the following: Include references to Mulayam Singh's and Advani's opinions [not elaborated by them in detail, as far as I understood; point out this fact clearly] (in the section on President's rule), discuss briefly the nature of the disagreement with the Vajpayee government on basic structure (in the golden jubilee section), and discuss the anonymous quotes from the report in the Demission of office section. I think, with all the criticisms at the appropriate places, and this report at the demission of office section, the reader can deduce the nature of the tension between KRN and the BJP. Is this all right, and/or is there anything more/something else that you want to suggest?
Sectioning/Abridgement
(1) Participation in the elections: I think it should be part of KRN's biography; it is a notable event, and is mentioned pointedly in many obits, including Hindu's editorial. (Of course, a mention of this can be made in the article on Presidents as well.)
(2) Exercise of Presidential discretion: These are the most critical duties of a President, and should be here. (Again, a mention of KRN's innovations could be made in the article on Presidents.)
(3) Speeches: They are an important of KRN's work as a President. He was articulated his vision and concerns on various questions, and Presidents have been considered as educators of the citizenry on appropriate topics. Since they are separated off in a clearly marked section, I don't see how it could bog a reader down. It certainly gives a comprehensive understanding of KRN as a President and as a human being. I think this section should stay.
(4) 'Origins/Education', etc.: I think these sections deal with clearly distinct topics, and the titles clearly describe what the sections contain (I feel Early life is relatively vague compared to Origins/Education). Should they really be merged? Also the sections presently give different aspects of his career and life. I understand these may not be usual, but I don't see any convincing reason why this organisation is bad. (In my planned lead, the third paragraph will give a brief description of his life, so the section titles should be even more comprehensible then.)
(5) Gujral's quote: It clearly describes how KRN's elevation as President means to the ideals of Indian Republic, of the freedom struggle, and to the backwards classes of the country. This an important point that needs to be discussed in the article on KRN, in any case. Since this quote from a memorable occasion succinctly captures all that, I really think it should stay. (It can also be used in the article on Presidents.)
(6) Presidency: This section is long, but I think it is justifiable. The sub-section titles, I feel, clearly describe various important facets. I don't think merging them would improve anything. I feel the section can be made more accessible by including a lead paragraph in the Presidency section, summarising the various events/issues; this would make the titles of the sub-sections clearer, and help guide the reader. From reading the guidelines on summary style, I feel the size of the text itself (and not that devoted to referencing/citing) should be considered in deciding on condensing the article; I feel the size of the article is more due to elaborate citations rather than lengthy paragraphs, and that the text size itself is justifiable.
Lead: Have thought out a lead. But would like to settle the previous points before submitting a final version.
Citations:
(1) Nehru's request: Citation has been provided. (However, I feel this is not a controversial statement, and need not be cited explicitly. Biographies cover such things adequately.)
(2) Dalit affairs: The citation had been omitted by mistake, and has been put in. Thanks.
(3) 'pained and anguished' : Cited.
(4) Please continue to check for citations which might be required.
Personal life: Nothing much to remark upon, other than what is already in the article, as far as I know.
Images:
(1) Government images: I don't know how the legal situation of these images (five) can be ascertained, any more than what is already stated in the explanations in these images. If you feel there is some way we can do more on this, please advise.
(2) Image of Clinton and KRN: Yes, I think one of those images is nice to put in. (RJ: would you want to do it yourself, as I don't know exactly why they are free images.)
(3) FU images: Of the five images in this category, I think the rationale for the images of KRN voting, of KRN at WSF, and of KRN with Annan, can be strengthened sufficiently (as per RJ's suggestions). We shall work on it after the preceding issues are cleared.
(4) While images are not necessary at all, I feel some of those images are nice to keep, if possible.
Copyediting:
(1) Malayalam text of name: Yes. Will do.
(2) Sentences beginning with 'He' : Yes. Will do towards the end of this process.
(3) Combining paragraphs: Will look at the article and try to do this wherever I feel it is advisable.
(4) Years/Dates in sentences: I feel this adds unnecessary length to the article, and complicates the structure of some sentences which already have much to say about other things. Dates are given throughout the article as an aid to placing things in context, but I feel they should indeed be looked at as an afterthought; that is why they are placed in parentheses in the present version.
Please let me know if I have omitted addressing any concerns. Also, RJ, could you please indicate where you felt a discussion of critical views had been cut off abruptly, if I have not mentioned them in the bias responses already?
P. S.: As I was posting this, I noticed RJ's recent edit. I think I agree.
Comment: I am glad that there is a good understanding of what needs to be accomplished before we push this for FAC. I have done some copyediting to some of the earlier sections of the article. More will be on its way. With regards to Italo's comments vis-a-vis the "independent and assertive" phrase in the lead, I do not think we should be including this since it will invite objections during the process. Their question will be, you say Narayanan was considered independent and assertive; considered independent and assertive by whom?? Keep in mind that we need to present statements that are indisputable, and I'm not sure how strongly we will be able to defend the above phrase. AreJay21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work thus far. I haven't read through the article in as much detail as I would like to have, but this is much better. I will review the article again and copyedit the article. Here are some suggestions -- the image of the President's wife - please delete it. It looks out of place and it's copyright tag is questionable (see Rama's Arrow's comments re Government of India images). Also can someone go through the article and create stubs for all the red links? It shouldn't take too long, IMO, and there aren't too many red links in the first place. Thanks AreJay03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
red-link stubs: half-done, some more to go. -Pournami
New Cleanup (3/15)
I have begun copyediting the article and here are some common themes that I have observed wrt the segments that I have reviewed. I am yet to read through the last three segments of the article:
1. Sentence Structure: There is an excessive use of parentheses and semi-colons. This lends a choppy structure to the article makes it very difficult to read and follow the thought process. Please replace all parentheses and semi-colons.
Also, the article uses a lot of ornate vocabulary and round about sentences. Sentences should be kept simple and to the point. Elaborate words will tend to confuse readers.
2. POV: Here are some POV statements that I have found thus far:
"Narayanan had the singular honour of being the President.." why the phrase "singular honor"? He may have been the leader of the country during the golden jubilee, but the use of this phrase is unencyclopedic. Please remove and/or rephrase.
"Address to the nation from the ramparts of the Red fort on the golden jubilee of Indian independence" What is the purpose of such a large excerpt from Gujaral's speech? If
the idea is to highlight his complements to Narayanan, please select the one or two sentences that directly relate to him and/or paraphrase the context of the speech.
"Narayanan sought to correct what was a long-standing practice "...I changed correct to change. After all, who's to say what is correct and what is not?
"President K. R. Narayanan's address to the nation...is a landmark.." References must be cited for this (I have added a {{citationneeded}} to it). Please specify a source that asserts that Narayanan was the first President to broach this topic on Republic Day.
"and pointed out the wisdom of reposing faith in the common men and women of India as a whole, rather than in some elite section of society." Wisdom of reposing faith? Again, needs to be paraphrased to avoid POV.
"and have set an important precedent concerning federalism and the rights of state governments." This sentence needs to be qualified with additional information. I don't quite understand what the sentence's intended purpose/meaning is.
"This caused a problem in accountability, as the Lok Sabha had been dissolved and a caretaker government was in office." If a caretaker government was in office why was there a problem of "accountability"? Please explain/expand.
Of course,whatever that can be improved should be improved.But it is tough to get away with the parentheses with years inside,as it has already been argued here.
Comment: For the sections that I copyedited yesterday, I cleaned up some of this. But there's many instances of parentheses and semi colons in the rest of the article. I userstand this is still work-in-progress. I just wanted that to be highlighted. AreJay14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course a "singular honour"; the fact that he was the president at the golden jubilee,the fact that he delivered the midnight speech at the central hall reminiscent of the tryst with destiny distinguishes him from other presidents and this should be mentioned in the article.But if the words need be rephrased,it may be done.
Comment: I'm sure it was a singular honor. But it is not for us to opine. This must be paraphrased. Singular honor is a phrase that will invite needless objections, because it is subjective. AreJay14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only meant as a compliment to KRN,it is something higher than that.It efficiently captures the importance of having someone like KRN as president.And the occation in which it has been said is really,really important,perhaps the most important occation we have;the PM's annual address at Red Fort,and this was even more important 'cuz the golden jubilee.I just want to quote Italo here
It clearly describes how KRN's elevation as President means to the ideals of Indian Republic, of the freedom struggle, and to the backwards classes of the country. This an important point that needs to be discussed in the article on KRN, in any case. Since this quote from a memorable occasion succinctly captures all that, I really think it should stay.
Comment: My comment here was not that it should be removed. I didn't see why such a huge part of Gujaral's speech was directly quoted. This must be paraphrased. AreJay14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about correctness from a philosophical/subjective/relative p.o.v but about whether it is correct as per constitution.Objective rules on "Who all can vote?" has been laid out in the constitution,and the president too falls in this category.So the president is correct as per constitution if he chooses to vote.
Comment: then the qualifyer "per the rights bestowed to citizens by the Indian constitution" needs to be added if we're going to use the word "correct". AreJay14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When K.R. Narayanan addressed the nation on the eve of Republic Day, he handed down a scathing analysis of what has gone wrong with the country in recent years. Coming from a person holding the nation's highest office, it was not merely unusual but unprecedented.[4]
Ammu Joseph-"President's unprecedented and unconventional commentary on the state of the nation"[5].Harish Khare reporting the event in The Hindu-"Perhaps never before has an occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan spoken with such candour and poignancy about the state of social and political affairs"[6].Hope these are sufficient.There was unanimity in the media that his address was unprecedented,and hence there is no controversy here,and hence no need of a citation,IMHO.UpdateThe required citations have been added.--Sahodaran13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is "he pointed out".He certainly *pointed that out*,he provided arguements for that;it is tough to get a one sentence,specific quote from this that explains everything,but here is one.
This act of faith by the founding fathers meant that the governance of this vast country was not to be left in the hands of an elite class but the people as a whole.
It means that we have a federal system of government,with well laid out rules,which should be honoured.The centre should not encroach upon the rights and authority given to the states by the constitution.Here are the details.So there is no factual defect.And the current sentence is enough I feel,but that might be because I am somewhat familiar with the whole thing.
It is a caretaker govt.,not an elected govt.The the Lok Sabha had been dissolved,and thus a caretaker govt. is not accountable to the democratic process.
Comment: Isn't a caretaker government the same as an interim government? How is an interim government not accountable to the democratic process?? There may be a valid explaination for this, but that needs to be added to the corresponding statement in the article. AreJay14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:-Parliament is the supreme body as per constitution,every major decision of the government must get a consent from the parliament after proper deliberations,it is *accountable* to the parliament.When the parliament is dissolved,this cannot be done.--Sahodaran17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I've provided valid arguements.We can go ahead with the respective edits in the cases where objections have been cleared,and I am willing to clarify further on the rest.Thanks. --Sahodaran07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead needs to be shortened and tightened. We need citations for things like Indira Gandhi "requesting" him to join politics (also, KRN saying so doesn't make it a fact) and NDA refusing to support him the second time (AFAICT, it did not do so publicly, lots of rumours circulated in the press etc.). Other presidents have also had uneasy relationships with the governments of the day - Rajendra Prasad with Nehru, Radhakrishnan with Indira Gandhi (rather, it was in the reverse direction here), Zail Singh with Rajiv Gandhi etc. R. Venkatraman was the first President to return a bill, the postal bill, if I am not mistaken. That is more important than, say, voting in an election, imo. Each of the presidents would have broken some convention or the other - we should be neutral in assessing the impact. For example, the current president has broken several taboos by interacting with people more freely and undertaking serious diplomatic visits. I am sorry if I seem to be meandering, but KRN's achievements must be placed in his context - poverty, untouchability etc. in the lead rather than portray him as the best or only assertive president. What needs to be stressed and what is more interesting is how he made it in life despite hardships in life, not what he did in the position of president. Just as people ask why Zail Singh did not resign from his post if he was opposed to Operation Bluestar as he claimed, people also ask what prevented KRN from resigning due to his differences with inaction on Gujarat riots. I understand that these are difficult, tricky and probably even POV-ish questions to answer, but I believe that we should also have the critics' views finding some place even in the lead. --Gurubrahma06:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KOCHERIL RAMAN NARAYANAN inherited the presidential office at a time the Head of State was firmly imprinted in the public perception as a "rubber stamp" figure. The occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan unfailingly acted on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, rarely if at all went public with his opinion. It was unthinkable that the first citizen could admit to a political vision that was at variance with that of the government of the day. President Narayanan defied the stereotype, pushing the envelope in areas that were previously unexplored but without ever becoming activist in a way that would have undermined his constitutional role. In his own words, he was "not an executive President but a working President, and working within four corners of the Constitution."
I dont know if someone will dispute this fact; not even the BJP.And isnt setting *official precedents*(like what to do if things are so and so), with scholarly and sound reasonings based on the constitution that blunts critics different from meeting more people and visiting more schools? I agree that the lead has to go a long way.And he not only "made it in life despite hardships in life" but also did a lot of unprecedented,important things.But I'll try to stress the first part too.And about your edit;"Narayanan is considered" has been changed to "was considered";he *is still being considered so* is a fact,even after his death,isnt it?--Sahodaran08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lead length; perhaps can be adjusted/worked on. will happen gradually, i guess.
IG "request": If we require citation, we can have one of KRN saying so.
I won't force any reader to believe that "It is a fact because KRN said so". (Call me an unfairly biased KRN fan. If I were just passing by this articcle instead of writing it, "KRN said so" would be all the attestation I would demand for *this* specific instance: of IG requesting him)
We can have other citations, each of which are either based on taking KRN's words to be true, or (I hate to admit,) plagiarised from this article at the time of KRN's demise to write obits.
The point is, please understand the difficulty of finding an appropriater citation than KRN's own words:
Indian newspaper archives online aren't available beyond more than 10 years back. So we can't track a news report from long ago saying, "IG asks..."
Non online sources are even more difficulter to obtain
So, you might ask, why not just remove the part about IG requesting? Here, the chief point perhaps isn't made so well in the article: perhaps needs to be explained with adequate citation that KRN was primarily interested in academic/journalistic career only and took up other assignments upon request of leaders he respected, and these leaders made these requests not as part of allowing concessions to dalits, but bercause they were impressed by his work, and were convinced he was the appropriate man for the job.
NDA non support: i hope the above links are sufficient.-Pournami
The point is, you cannot have op-ed pieces claiming something as fact. You can definitely say that "The Hindu" observed or a section of media regerded him as etc. SInce IG is dead, we have no way of knowing if she really requested him. You cannot say IG requested him in the light of evidence available, a better way of saying it is "KRN indicated in an interview that he wanted to continue life in academics but that he changed his decision after IG requested him" or some such thing. That is the difference between a FA and an ordinary article. "was considered" and "is considered" - I am ok either way, but the former is the right way of expression as it refers to that period. For emphasis, you can say "was considered" and "is still considered", though. My stress is not on having citations for everything but represent everything the way it is. --Gurubrahma11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It was Nehru's daughter, prime minister Indira Gandhi, who brought the nominally-retired KR Narayanan into the political sphere.[..]she persuaded him to stand for the lower house of the Indian parliament, the Lok Sabha."The BBC Obit."Narayanan entered politics at the request of then-prime minister Indira Gandhi"The Rediff Obit.Will these do?--Sahodaran11:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sahodaran and Pournami, you might want to go through the article and locate any similar WP:WEASEL words and address them with appropriate citations and/or change the sentence to reflect differences b/w fact and opinon. I agree with Gurubrahma, that's the difference between a good article and an FA article. AreJay21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel terms
the only two instances i found in the article were the ones already discussed. these are:
In India, where the office of the President is largely ceremonial without executive powers, Narayanan was regarded as an independent and assertive President who set several precedents and enlarged the scope of the highest constitutional office.
President K. R. Narayanan's address to the nation [1] on the golden jubilee of the Indian Republic (26 January2000) is considered a landmark[2]: it was the first time[3] a President attempted to analyse, with due concern for growing disparities, the several ways in which the country had failed[4] to provide economic justice to the Indian people, particularly the rural and agrarian population; he also stated that discontent was breeding and frustrations erupting in violence among the deprived sections of society.
i'll fix them myself, sometime; i know i'm slightly guilty in this regard, i had something to do with the introduction of these weasel words. as for the rest of the article; i didn't find any other such usages.
fact and opinion
then there are a few places where the adjective "important" comes in; someone might say the "importance" accorded is only thewiki-writer's subjective judgement; it's not the case as i see it; the word "important" is used to perhaps highlight the importance of the situation to an international audience, not necessarily familiar with the workings of indian parliament/presidency---Pournami06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the meeting between Narayanan and Karunakaran in 1991 sounds rather one-sided in portraying Karunakaran unambigously as a villian, because it comes directly from an interview with KRN. Will it be possible to add an opinion from a neutral source (which would be tough, it being Kerala politics !) about this issue. Tintin (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on this article, and would like to further improve it to FA status. I've run out of ideas for now, so suggestions/help would be highly appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments
Citations - a lot more notes are necessary - especially on quotes of poetry, sayings, etc.
Lead - its small - should summarize his life, philosophy and influence.
Organization - its a very basic organization right now. I wonder if its possible to do more sophisticated - for example, life would be subdivided into early-pivotal-later-climactic-demise sorta. Influence of background philosophies/culture/ideas on and from Rumi should be told in the sections of his life, teachings, works, as one stream and not separate.
I usually don't like to see red links in an FA - please see if you can create articles on those topics.
A sense of comprehensive-ness is usually obtained if the article's size is around 32-35kb. The amount of text is reliant on the sources available to you, but there should be some guarantee of comprehensiveness. Rama's Arrow19:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Shams ud-Din Tabriz 1502-1504 BNF Paris.jpg is without copyright info - also, FU images must have an FU rationale to be in an FA. Rama's Arrow19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm working on some of these points. Any non-commercial use of the images I uploaded is fair according to the source. I'll contact the guy who uploaded Image:Shams ud-Din Tabriz 1502-1504 BNF Paris.jpg for source. deeptrivia (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know what people think of this article, and how it can be made better. Being from the Philippines myself, I'm interested in knowing how the article looks through objective eyes. First of all, I realize there are no references, and that's a real problem that needs to be remedied. With that aside, I'd like to hear some constructive criticism. :) Coffee14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long sections need to be summarised. The article on the whole needs to be copyedited. For reference, please India which is used to model many other country-based featured articles. =Nichalp«Talk»=06:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks quite nice. I compared it to some of the previous nation FA articles and have a few suggestions:
In the history section I'd like to see a little more about the settlement of the archipelago prior to European contact.
The "See also" section of the Australia, Cambodia and India articles are nicely organized. Can something like that be done?
There are no sections on Transportation or Foreign relations, such as are found on other nation pages. I think the later especially is an important sub-topic on nation pages.
Do there need to be two countries templates down at the bottom? Cambodia, of example, only uses "Countries in Southeast Asia".
Most of the other country articles have a separate section for States and territories, whereas this article has merged administrative divisions and government.
Could the bulleted list of regions be converted into a nice table comparable to this: South_Africa#Provinces?
Optionally you could include a section on flora and fauna, or ecology.
The Philippines has incredibly unique flora and fauna which should really make its way into the article with its own section heading if not a summary + new article. --Aranae04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee, I know you mentioned them already, but the lack of references would unfortunately stop this article from making the Good Article list never mind the FA list. When they are being added it would also be good if inline citations were included. This: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite.php helped me do references in previous articles with a lot less pain than previous formats of footnotes and refs. It keeps track of numbers and you can use the same ref multiple times by just using the ref name from the second time you use it onwards. Regards SeanMack03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Olga Rudge had a spell on FAC here [7] where she was more or less ignored. One objection which was not actionable, and a couple of half hearted suggestions she came here - so here she is. What do you think? - all comments welcome Giano | talk13:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more sources, but you knew I was going to say that. The lead should be two full paragraphs; expand it a bit to summarize more of the most important things about her. The early life section isn't written nearly as well as the rest. It's choppy. As it stands it could be better as one whole cohesive paragraph, but it could be expanded a bit too. The first question that comes up is did her parents divorce, or just live in different places? Is there any more info on how she came to be a great violinist? As it is now, we just know she studied under one guy and then is suddenly a great violinist. Who says she's great by then anyway? The rest is good until the last paragraph of the first section in 'Alone in Venice'. We just finish talking about the daughter and then jump into Venice being tough to live in. Where do you know the epitaph from? Was it written in English or Italian? With those additions/changes the structure should be clean enough that it will pass if no major objections can't be found. A violinist will never draw as much interest from editors as a pop culture controversy, so you may have to ask people to review it specifically when you nominate it at FAC next. - TaxmanTalk00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The writing I can manage, finding more sources? That will be harder, I think what is listed is probably all there are, she is not very well documented at all - that's why I chose to do her, to see what I could dig up - perhaps there is just not enough information to make a FA. If only she had put a few rings through her nose and and snorted a few lines - it would be so much easier! Giano | talk07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all there is, then that's fine, just make sure there aren't any other significant ones. Various large library databases could help you find some more decent ones that you could get on an inter-library loan. Wouldn't books on Pound cover her some too? Even if other books have short mentions they help balance out the potential POV that a source just on her might have. I don't think you need to expand the article much at all, just verify the information from additional sources and make sure they don't differ on significant points. - TaxmanTalk15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, as long as they meet the same quality guidelines. I believe WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources have guidelines on them. Basically it's a little more difficult to verify them because a native speaker has to get a hold of the source, but for major languages that's not a problem. In short, English sources are preferred because of that extra difficulty involved verifying other language sources, but high quality sources from other languages can be very valuable, especially where English sources aren't available. - TaxmanTalk17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. OK - It will take a few days to lay my hands on some further references, but the page will becme far more musical as a result. I'm sure on one of my FAs somewhere, or perhaps someone else's there was an onjection because a couple of Italian reference books were in the list - perhaps that's all changed now - One can't keep up these days! What do you think of the extended lead? Giano | talk19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is good. Don't necessarily add more material unless it needs it. Make sure to keep it in proper balance to the important information about her. As far as foreign language sources we relatively recently hacked out the consensus on that, but even then, not every FAC commentor knows all the rules, and may sometimes simply be wrong. If there are no English sources that is a problem, but as long as there is a balance people have agreed that the better the source, the more reason to include it, whatever language it is in. - TaxmanTalk16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought for a while it was a little light on her musical side, on its original FAC someone wanted it merged with Ezra Pound claiming OIga a was not notable in her own right - while that (IMO) is rubbish, a little more detail about her own career would not come amiss to prevent that claim being remade. More information could be given on the relationship with her daughter, but as the daughter is still alive I want to cut a fine line between necessary act and scandal mongering - without losing human interest - difficult. I've ordered a book, all we need now is the Italian and British postal service to display a greater efficiency and co-operation than is normal! Your point of asking people "to review it specifically when you nominate it at FAC" - I thought that was frowned upon - spamming or whatever it's called - I've hesitated before even dropping subtle hints to my closes friends here. Thanks for the help Giano | talk16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well FAC isn't a vote, so it's not quite as much of a problem as say RfA or whatever, but of course don't ask 15+ people or something. I've gotten say 20+ requests to review articles, and I usually accomodate them when I can. If you ask for honest appraisal of the article that helps too, and If you get it beyond the first one or two commentors, for whatever reason you'll attract more. - TaxmanTalk00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read this a couple of days ago and reviewed the FAC nomination. I think JoaoRicardo's comment about merging with Ezra Pound was misinterpreted. Most of the article is spent discussing her relationship to Pound (how many paragraphs do not have the word "Pound" in it?) rather than Rudge as an independent person (eg. Relationship of Ezra Pound and Olga Rudge). I can see this is not an easy article to write and will require a lot more work than the more common (core) topics which have many potential sources. There are some sources on Rudge herself but you may have better luck picking pieces out of Pound-related sources (but that probably won't help the Pound-POV of Rudge). Anyways, at this point the article appears well on its way to FA status. --maclean2506:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a casual glance -- this article seems very listy, much of which ought to be expanded to prose paragraphs or moved to a different article. Tuf-Kat06:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tremendously list-oriented. :) You might compare to the British Army article for example, which is a bit less list-oriented. But I know some of that can't be helped. Still an attractive table or two could be used instead.
The notable commanders at the top could easily be exapnded to at least a half dozen, I'd say.
I'd like it if the first section covered the history of the Army, with say a paragraph per major war.
The "Named Campaigns" section seems to over-emphasize the Revolutionary War and covers none of the others. That section seems like over-kill in it's current form and could be put on another page.
I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to have so many external links throughout the article. Those could be difficult to maintain.
The "Formations of the United States Army" could mention that this concerns the current Army only. Not historical formations.
I agree the subject deserves a longer introduction, probably three paragraphs. I recommend branching off the majority of the lists into daughter articles and concentrating on the narrative. There seems to be almost nothing about its history. That includes not just campaigns but peacetime operations and United Nations interventions. Include major organizational changes such as racial integration in 1948 and the changing roles of female servicemembers. How about special forces? Don't ask, don't tell? I'd like fewer red links and more line citations. Durova23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready for prime time. The article represents a lot of work, but it doesn't flow well, and has some deficiencies. Suggestions:
There should be at least two related articles, History of the United States Army, and Rank Structure and Insignias of the United States Army. Most of the pertinent material in the current article should be spun off into those related articles, and summarized in the main article. Histories of individual units should be covered in articles about those units.
There should be at least one picture of a Soldier; probably two, one showing both a man and woman in dress uniform, and another contemporary foto of troops in combat uniforms.
The sections Major Commands of the United States Army, Formations of the United States Army, US Units formed 1784 to 1821 etc, Structure of the U.S. Army and Organization all attempt to explain the structure of the Army, and together they're about as clear as a military phone book (notoriously easy for finding numbers if you're expert at the organizational structure). The article should should have a Ground Order of Battle, kept at the divisional level.
The article lacks any discussion of doctrine.
Likewise, Army culture and ethics.
The training section is a stub.
The article would be improved by a discussion of the people of the Army. There is no mention of Army government service civilians, nor of contractors who support the Army. The Army family is not mentioned. What are the demographics of our Soldiers? How long do they serve? What is the Army's recruitment goals and how well is it meeting them? The Army is a large organization of people; the article should cover the human aspect.
I have been working on this article for simply ages, and would like some feedback, criticism, and general comments. Ideas for improvement? --Firsfron22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the several suggestions. However, the demographics section can't be added: it's an unincorporated community. Thus no official figures. As for expanding, what can I even expand it with?--Firsfron01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As biased as it is, I like it. One thing to be improved upon could be impact on Oahu. I haven't found any yet, but there might be some out there. Hurricanehink17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a short summary of the following sections on the first paragraph. You can add one-sentence summaries about the damage on Kauai and Oahu, and that should do. The second paragraph of the lead is fine. Titoxd(?!? - help us)03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C++ is already a good article, but needs alot of cleanup. It seems to be too long write now, so what can be moved or removed? Is everything copyedited? And is anything innacurate or in need of expansion?MadCow25702:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Operators section is only a link (the objects that are discussed next are not operators). There's a lot of coding that could be linked to instead of being included. The section "Standard template library" is far too technical and the code in it is complete gibberish to me. If you want it shortened, you could probably spin off the history section into an article of its own, leaving behind a shorter summary. In general cut on the coding examples and get rid of programmer speak. - 131.211.210.1509:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is having less code neccesary? It's basic and short, and articles should be gratifying to both the general public and those interested in the topic right?MadCow25713:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to take the geekiness out of this article and make it enjoyable for the general audience. Passages such as the following really need to be removed entirely:
Some C programmers have noted that if the statements x=3; and y=x++; are executed, then x==4 and y==3; x is incremented after its value is assigned to y. However, if the second statement is y=++x;, then y==4 and x==4. Following such reasoning, a more proper name for C++ might actually be ++C. However, c++ and ++c both increment c, and, on its own line, the form c++ is more common than ++c. However, the introduction of C++ did not change the C language itself, so an even more accurate name might be "C+1".
Article suffers from some poor header organization:
"Future development" under History.
Features of C++ such as its OO support under syntax.
"Standard Library" alone under Resources.
From the philosophy section I quote "C++ is designed to directly and comprehensively support multiple programming styles (procedural programming, data abstraction, object-oriented programming, and generic programming)". Okay, this is nice to know, but where is this support discussed? The polymorphism header (under objects under syntax :( ) mentions templates but only discusses function overloading and uses "member function" instead of simply "function" a lot of times for no reason.
Big code examples are used instead of prose. I think it would be best to limit code example to a few lines, say 5. If you need much more, then something is wrong.
Just a little comment: the explanation of the name C++ reads the form c++ is more common than ++c, which I think is factually inaccurate. As far as I know more programmers prefer ++c to c++ as it's faster. --Deryck C.05:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'm a fan of this group and would like any comments and suggestions you can give regarding improvement of the page. The goal I have is to make the group look as good as possible without being a cheerleader or showing bias. If there are layout changes I can make to clean up the page a bit or if there are things you think I should add or remove, please let me know! Thanks a ton, -robbie
To bring this anywhere near featured status you need to increase the length of prose in the article. It should consider different aspects of the group: makeup, history, repertoire, etc. You could integrate more pictures into the article and get some references. --OldakQuill12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article to comment on yet, it is still a collection of lists. You could start by writing the group's history, how and why it formed, and what exactly it's been doing for the last 29 years. --Tsavage06:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing a lot of work on the article about the band Fenix*TX and I was wondering what improvements are to be made for it to become a featured article. --HarryCane13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good. I just had a couple of minor issues:
Could you include some clarification of the expression "gleeful lyrics"?
Please clarify the minor ambiguity in the following sentence: "the album featured ten more raucous and energetic songs than on their previous efforts". Were there a total of ten songs, all of which were more raucous? Or were just ten out of all the songs more raucous?
Finally, since the band members don't have their own pages, could you include some background on the key members? Perhaps in a members section after the history. Thanks. — RJH00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
During article assessmentVioletriga rated this 8/10 (and if I had rated it in time, I would've given it about the same). It is comprehensive, has good pictures and (forgetting the current reference problem) it fulfills all FA requirements, so I believe it has a fair chance at getting featured in the near future. Apart from separating external links from references and using inline citation, what else can be done to improve this to featured status? - Mgm|(talk)13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes overall it's a pretty good article. The writing seems a little awkward in a few places and could use some extra polishing up. The bulleted list of eruptions in the "Before AD 79" section should converted into a table form. The one picture I'd like to see added is an overhead (or satellite) shot to give the big picture.[8][9][10]... (I know the coordinate link takes you to a map site. But still an artfully chosen overhead image would help.) A section covering media appearance of the mountain (books, movies, &c.) would be welcome as well, if there were, say, more than two such. Thank you! :) — RJH16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I think polishing is required - many sections are rather short, there are capitalised headings which don't conform to the MoS, and things like that. I think the article is not particularly scholarly at the moment - no references cited from journal articles or other academic sources. And the external links section is unnecessarily huge at the moment. But it's a solid article on a topic which is ideal for bringing up to featured standards. I have been planning to work on this article for a while, as Vesuvius is a Decade Volcano and thus included in Wikipedia:WikiReader/Decade Volcanoes which I created. I should be able to find time in the next week or so to give it a thorough editing which I hope will improve it a lot. Worldtraveller00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check up on the sources themselves yet, but a lot of those external links are linked to as sources within the text and the Osservatorio Vesuvio local national park authorities and eyewitness accounts are all good sources IMO, even if not literally scientific. I'll contact you, so we don't do duplicate work. - Mgm|(talk)05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the movie on computer last month (and its 2000counterpart on DVD around New Year's), and I could not possibly get away from either.
That's all I can say for now. Tell me how good it looks so far, and I'll check out on it when I have time. Perhaps I can add some screenshots? --Slgrandson02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those articles I wish I had time to work on, but, alas, the real world calls. I can make some suggestions, however:
"Cast" should not be the first item we see, and it does not need to be in a table. Integrate it int the "Credits" section at the bottom of the article (there is already some overlap between both sections).
This article is not even hardly as in-depth as it needs to be about the concepts and production of Fantasia, especially when taking into account just how important this film is. Its post-history (that is, its legacy and re-release history) are covered in the most detail here. There is a big book on Fantasia by John Culhane that would be an excellent primary source, as would a number of other books on Disney films. The audio commentaries (there are two) on the Fantasia DVD, as well as the documentary, are excellent sources as well. There is so much to pick up on (processes used and developed, techniques pioneered, animation styles used, art direction, etc. I know the article is already at 30K, bt that section must be heavily expanded ot make a good article on Fantasia. Perhaps a breakout article for the credits and/or the re-releases would help make room.
Quotes from the creators (meaning at least Walt, if no one else) are essential.
Thanks, FuriousFreddy. That's all I needed to hear about it. Now I can start working on it as best as I can. Too bad I'll be able to finish it as such when America calls (I'm in Dominica)... --Slgrandson03:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I renominated this page because it has improved since it's last peer review, and would like to see it as a featured article. --Arigont 8:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Very nice, I'd neaten up the image structure a bit (standardize image justification and sizes), and perhaps reduce the number of subcategories. --PopUpPirate00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Jaranda! Here are some of my comments/suggestions...
Sentences in the lead are far too frequent. Also there is no need for 2-3 sentence paragraphs. Please merge some of the sentences to promote flow.
If you're going to reference a main "History of Miami" article, there is no need for subsections within the History section of the Maimi article. Please summarize the contents per Wikipedia:Summary Style.
de-italicize oolite, limestone and ice ages. Not required per WP:MOS.
"Starting about 100,000 years ago, the Wisconsin glaciation..."
Stating that Miami is the 46th largest city in the country, without stating that the Miami metropolitan area is (possibly) among the 10 largest in the nation provides a wrong impression of the population of the city vis-a-vis the rest of the country. The Miami metropolitan area has over 4 million people, making it the second largest city in the Southeast, after Atlanta. [11].
"Other languages that are spoken..." is this list in any particular order? If this is a ranked order, cite sources and/or their respective percentages. If this is not in any ranked order, none of these should be mentioned since it could promote a misleading interpretation of the demographic buildup of the city.
"The latin and Caribbean-friendly atmosphere.." What is a Caribbean-friendly atmosphere??
Wikify the Miami Floridians, Miami Gatos, etc.
Wouldn't Scarface warrant a mention in Miami in television and film?
Please consolidate 2-3 sentence paragraphs in the article into more solid paragraphs.
Apart from all that, this is a well written article, well referenced. You might want to expand on some of the negative aspects of the city. There is only a short paragraph on crime. What are some of the other issues in the city?
After these suggestions have been addressed, I will help with the copyediting effort before you promote the article to FAC. Thanks and good luck! AreJay04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many one and two sentence paragraphs that need to be developed into substantive paragraphs (specifically the "Economy", "Media" and the "Sports" section require attention).
The "Media" section currently reads like a list of trivia, when you develop this section orient the discussion more towards the city rather than the film/show, consider filminflorida.com, filmiami.org, madeinmiami.org and other related tourism/economic development agencies.
The "Demographics" section can be prettied up with a little token chart, table or graph.
A map of the town would be most useful, preferably showing the street layout and notable places (airport, downtown, stadiums, etc.)
I think this article has been improved significantly since Jimbo recommended priority cleanup last October. It appears to be NPOV and well sourced, and to cover the most important aspect's of Fonda's life, but I know there is still lots of room for improvement, and I would like some feedback. Andrea Parton22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a bit of restructure, it's very politics biased, and (minor point) consider a bit of factual text under the main photo. Good work tho! --PopUpPirate00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some general feedback and copy-edits. I'm not sure if the tone is OK or if the clarifications are understandable. Constructive citicism is appreciated. Thanks. :) GfloresTalk19:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you a layman's first (and I mean first) impressions:
What do the funny numbers at the top mean?
I don't get all the complicated words. What is a Symptomatology?
I need to read really slowly to understand the complicated sentences. Maybe more examples would make the article more lively. Or pictures. And I don't mean of some guy giving a speech.
It took me a long time to understand that this is actually a complicated word for shyness.
Hope that helps ;-) Humor aside, the article is very informative and well-sourced, but largely inaccessible to those not benefiting of a university-level science education; the tone is more suited to a scientific paper than to an encyclopedia sitting on a family's bookshelf. Granted, I have no idea whether the underlying concepts can be "dumbed down" to make the article more accessible with a realistic amount of effort. As for the substance of the article - sorry, I'm a jurist, not a social anxietist... Greetings, Sandstein21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good job, but 1) yes, what are those numbers about? 2) make sure to ilink phrases like symptomatology 3) lead is too short, consider merging it with overview section 4) history usually goes first, not last 5) don't dumb down, but instead read the great Howard S. Becker's book on how to write for social sciences and be undestood by your readers :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify the headings where you can, at the moment the headings don't mean anything to the layman skimming through the article, and it makes for clumsy reading, eg. convert-
Comorbidity - There is a high degree of comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders. Social phobia is highly comorbid with low self-esteem and major depression, due...
to
Comorbidity - Social phobia often counteracts with other psychiatric disorders such as low self-esteem and major depression, due...
Thanks for the proof-read and replies. Here are a few of my comments.
Oops, after expanding the article, I forgot also expand the introduction. That should clear up what social anxiety is. PS, it's not just shyness, it's extreme, debilitating shyness (in a nutshell) :)
Funny numbers... I've tried to copy the format used in other FAs and WP:GAs related to psychology and disorders, see Schizophrenia, Chagas disease, Cystic fibrosis. Both of these have the box up top (I don't what else I should do with it). There's also been some discussion on the infobox's talk page... there's nothing I can do.
Pictures are extremely hard to come by, especially those not copyrighted. The 2 FAs above don't have too many images. I would like to add a picture of therapy somehow, but none of the therapy articles have one. I've searched everywhere.
You're right, having complicated section headers are a bad idea. I think I'll change symptomatology and etiology to something else. I might also change the overview section to something else... Terminology or something like that
History section: I've seen history sections toward the bottom before, do you think it'll look better at the top. I think going from the intro to history to overview is a bit odd. Or should it go after the overview section? Honestly, I kind of like it at the bottom. :)
I'll try to copy edit it (I was hoping to get some help here :)) and try to add more examples
Pirate: It's recommended not to wikify the headings, although there are exceptions. Secondly, I don't think counteract is the right word there, but I will change it up some.
A small group of users continues to post abortion in the causes of death statistics list.
Since abortion is
a: not included in any reputable compilation of death statistics outside pro-life organisations and, b: not in case of fact a provable or disprovable fact and therefore a opinion,
This is intended to be an interesting and informative article about the first ever round-the-world yacht race, which was also a single-handed race. I'm interested in feedback as to whether people think this article is ready (or close) for FA status. Comments welcome, including any indication about what I could do to make it more FA-worthy. — Johan the Ghostseance14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. For me a compelling read and made me want to read no stop from beginning to end - but I am fascinated by the topic!!. A small addition for consideration relating to Nigel Tetley - He subsequently committed suicide. I found the following (copyright??) from the web:-
"The title, A Voyage for Madmen, does no justice to Peter Nichols's intelligent analysis of his fellow sailors, who were certainly not mad at all. Odd, maybe, but not mad - even the two who were driven eventually to suicide. The bizarre story of Donald Crowhurst's attempted deception, sending false progress reports while never leaving the Atlantic, is an all too plausible tale of human fallibility, with suicide the only escape when he realises that he cannot live with the hoax. Nigel Tetley, who lost his boat within a whisker of completing the course, hanged himself later, depressed by his failure to find sponsors for a renewed attempt. Chay Blyth, by contrast, who had to drop out of the race at Cape Town, went on to become a highly successful entrepreneur of the sea while continuing to drive himself to the limit, as did the ever restless John Ridgway.
Of all the "competitors" who set out in 1968, only two were completely at home on the ocean - the expansively poetic Moitessier and his bluff Anglo-Saxon counterpart, Robin Knox-Johnston, described by a psychiatrist as "distressingly normal". Plodding slowly round the globe in his tubby, Indian-built, teak ketch Suhaili, improvising repairs, navigating with an instinct honed by years of experience in the merchant navy, his voyage is a classic tale of the human spirit triumphing over adversity. He admits that his self-imposed task can resemble "ten months solitary confinement with hard labour" but, with his affinity for the sea, he can also proclaim: "I was sailing round the world simply because I bloody well wanted to - and, I realised, I was thoroughly enjoying myself." Peter Nichols illuminates the specific lure of the ocean. But he knows better than to attempt glib psychological explanations, because if there were a simple answer to why people do these things, they would no longer be worth doing."
The info above re Nigel Tetley suicide is in the public domain and I recommend is included as it is closely linked to the race. The quote re Robin as "distressingly normal" is also in the public domain and is relevant. The contrast between the two characters is wide and maybe could be briefly highlighted in the article. Hope this helps. Please feel free to make a desision either way. Ian aka Boatman17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A week or so ago, I've extensively expanded this article and would welcome your comments. I know that sources are lacking, but these are hard to come by in English on topics such as these. I'll endeavour to find more, though, including print sources. Sandstein09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the additions are very informative. Nevertheless, I have some minor complaints: (i) One small mistake: There are two vice chancellors (no mention of Corina Casanova).[13] (ii) Could you provide some examples for the "numerous constitutional conventions"? (iii) Regarding the immunity of the Councillors: One should also mention the responsibilty of the Councillors for crimes committed in connection with their office (article 14 of the Verantwortlichkeitsgesetz).[14]--Idefix20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. I'll try to address this. As to origins, I don't think there is much to say: it's an office created by the 1848 Federal Constitution. The history, on the other hand, is lacking in the article. Sandstein05:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much to say: it's an office created by the 1848 Federal Constitution. Then that should be clearly stated in the article. (though Imostly skimmed,so imight have missedit)
Self-nomination. I spent a lot of time researching, writing, editing, rewriting, etc. to see this article come about. I spent a lot of effort to make sure it was clear, articulate, NPOV, non-original, and altogether wiki-friendly. I'd like to work towards featured article status, this is the first step. David Schroder15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to say I don't want to actually read an article on Protestant theology (I clicked because I figured it was an oddly titled Culture of Armenia article, idiot, I know), but if you want to look towards featured status, you might want to revise with respect to Wikipedia:Lead section, and think about the article layout and three(!) portal templates. Some pix outside those might be nice, too, though the Arminius one does work fine at that teeny size. --zippedmartin17:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to ease off the sub-headings in the "History" section which does not appear to require any, especially if it is a Wikipedia:Summary Style summation of the main article. The "Current Landscape" sub-section does not seem to fit in with the "History" section. Consider putting that into its own section - also that list should become prose (what about those people, what did they do be worthy of mention, what is their opinion?). With the titles of section, only capitalize the first word unless it is a name (eg. Current Landscape → Current landscape) and use the word "and" rather than "&". Aviod making self-references, like "They are examined in greater detail in the article for conditional election." Avoid having section without text, like "Theology". --maclean2520:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned that our articles could not agree on the number of obelisks in Rome. Obelisks in Rome said 7 Egyptian and 4 Roman copies; Obelisks said 12 in Italy of which 3 are outside Rome; it:Obelisco listed 9 in Rome; and it:Obelischi di Roma had lots.
The external links that have been added confirm that there are 13 "historic" obelisks, in Rome, of which 8 are thought to date from ancient Egyptian times, and 5 are thought to date from ancient Rome, plus a few more modern ones. Having tidied the article up, I was thinking of WP:FLC.
Clearly I need references (the external links are they at the moment, but paper suggestions are welcome), and images of the missing ones would be good (there are examples in the other wikipedias). Any other ideas or comments? -- ALoan(Talk)12:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning for this to be an article or just a rather smart list with some limited information? "Obelischi di Roma by Cesare D'Onofrio is a great book and you will probably pick up a translation (if you need one) on Amazon quite cheaply. Giano | talk16:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on a smart list rather than an article, but now you mention it there is probably enought material here for an article. Is the book available in English translation (my Italian is rather negligible). -- ALoan(Talk)12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I can't find it on Amazon or the usual uesed book sites. I have read it, or to be truthful skimmed through it, a long time ago. I'll see if I can lay my hands on a copy - but it wont be in the immediate future - looking through the book sites I see this one [15] is about to be published - at that price it doesn't really matter if it's a load of rubbish does it? Giano | talk13:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some changes in the article lately which leads to information which is not right. Regarding the patents, dynabee top rotations per minute and other things - it has to be rechecked. - Dmitrek09:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
successors for the dynabee while dynabee is still on the market and even a lot of other brands as Ironpower and so on!!
So hold the info correct as it is and not for marketing from a brand as nanosecond!
Despite claims to the contrary, many on the market seem to be identical. Just rebranded versions from the same source in Taiwan? No USA! See this ! Here but in German some reality from a German Uni [1] So please don't keep saying and asking wich was first and real and so on, you can all read this or translate it if you care.! The first device for commercial use was the Brand Dynabee. The pictures they changed into that of a Nanosecond powerball wich is not correct?!
Who/what is behind recent surge in interest?
What real improvements have been made to these things (not just the LEDs and other gimics introduced in patents like 5800311)?
Are there any studies on the putative benefits of these things (I doubt it)?
80.0.181.93 23:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. As it was said in the article, Dynabee was the first powerball on the market. It wasn't that good as the current powerballs but that doesn't matter for now. Let's say for example it could achieve only 6000rpm. After some time passed, the NanoSecond company started producing their NSD Powerballs, usually reffered as the "Powerball". They are the successors for the DynaBee project, since it's the only company, which produce powerball under original patent and with the latest improvements, created by NanoSecond itself. If you like to split the articles for the DynaBee product and Powerball - do so, since after your change the patent information, the rpm record, and many other options are not right. -Dmitrek 09:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The Dynabee Turbo Pro still on the market is the most powerfull from durable plastic and last ( also proven) for years. Somewhat bigger and more weight so more power ( see the formulas for this) then any other plastic powerball. Also there are Ironpower powerballs with a German steel rotor wich have more weight and therefore more power.
So the thing said above is not true at all. Only that Dynabee models don't have counters yes that is. Nanosecond powerballs are not reffered as "the powerball" because of legal terms and said by a judge also. ( the first on the market was yes that's true the Brand Dynabee and therefore you can say that the dynabee is "the powerball" but they don't because of respect for the description term "powerball" that is free to use for any other brand and gyro device on the market)
Some science behind the thing:
Journal of Applied Mechanics -- June 2000 -- Volume 67, Issue 2, pp. 321-325
On the Dynamics of the Dynabee
D. W. Gulick, Graduate Researcher and O. M. O'Reilly, Assoc. Mem. ASME, Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1740
Other questions:
Despite claims to the contrary, many on the market seem to be identical. Just rebranded versions from the same source in Taiwan? No USA!
See this !
Here but in German some reality from a German Uni [16]
So please don't keep saying and asking wich was first and real and so on, you can all read this or translate it if you care.! The first device for commercial use was the Brand Dynabee. The pictures they changed into that of a Nanosecond powerball wich is not correct?!
Who/what is behind recent surge in interest?
What real improvements have been made to these things (not just the LEDs and other gimics introduced in patents like 5800311)?
Are there any studies on the putative benefits of these things (I doubt it)?
Most of it you can read in some articles on websites and lawsuites that has been in the last 2 years.
Dynabee Turbo Pro could reach over 8000 RPM, while NSD Powerball (even the regular models) can exceed 14000 RPM, and the current world record is set on the NSD Powerball. Ironpower is again - just a copy. Why? It doesn't have a metal finish, it copies an NSD Powerball 350Hz, and it still (again!) doesn't have a counter. So, I want you to stop changing the article to older information - there must be a cooperation, not a counter-operation in Wiki. I and the other editors added lots of information to this article, and I want this article to be expanded, not shrinked for some egocentric reasons. If you have read everything I've wrote before, you'll see, that current information about NSD Powerballs is real and up-to-date. Thanks for reading! Dmitrek23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why telling that others are copy's from nsd and so on when dynabee is the first gyro and ironpower is the first metal gyro? .
If you look up the real patents and dates you see that NSD has copied the most important parts from dynabee. ( the principe of gyro effects the shapes and so on )
And ironpower is not a copy of nsd ( yes because of the counter that is not on the ironpower!) wich is the only real part nad has the patent!! Look in the patents for that.
If you explain dynabee its not ok to make en say things that are not through because the turbo pro last much longer than nsd and also can reach more rPM that only depends of the user.
Yes the marketing of nsd make it more beautiful to mention a higher RPM ( turbo pro is talking about the RPM that is for average user and healty because the higher RPM's can "damage" your wrists muscles if not trained well and this warning you can see in manuals and so on!)
The turbo pro is also bigger ad therefore more powerfull and so on.
But anyway this as you told yourself is not the place to compare so why from the start you do that with lies that in articles ( from universatity's and lawsuites) and in court are proven to be lies!
So the talking is over dynabee wich are powerballs is not ok to make marketing here for other brands with lies about very much.
Dynaflex is not the manufacturer of dynabee that is variety plastics they started in the 1970's with production and again in the early 90's. ( the orginal owner/licensehoder of the old patents from mishler also with generator! nr 5353655 from 1994 before Nanosecond even was there and the other patent is from 1973 mishler / dynabee patent nr 3726146) So the numbers patents and dates speech for themselves.
The extra Nanosecond has done is the patent with the counter but that is no successor from dynabee only an extra option!!)
Variety is now a part of Dynaflex but dynaflex has there own models powerballs that Nanosecond has copied to
Ironpower is from metal ( the outershell is allu/metal and thats metal to!) The steel rotor is from very high quality RVS ( German Edelstahl) so what you are talking about?
Please stop this nonsens.
Because of the outdating old dynabee/mishler patents its free to produce powerballs for others with that principe thats why nanaoseond startet but not only nanosecond a lot of others.
Therefore all copy's from dynabee principe if you read the patent info's.
Thats OK but then only saying nanosecond is .... and so on is not the complete latest info look f.a. the Ironpower thats on the market for a few years now the first real metal powerball on the market!
And Gyrotwister and so on.
You Dimitri likes to bring this as marketing for the nsd and not with real facts only degrees others and with marketing talk about nsd to have them be better and so on.
They are not better but yes they are good ( as you do here to in marketing and saying bad things about competitors)
The isssue is here dynabee and the principes of powerball gyro's As you see the link that's in german to ( http://www.powerballeu.com/powerballdynabeeuitvinding.pdf ) and this one on page 5 from houston horizon ( this part is abused throug people that are saying nasa has developed the dynabee) http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/feb01/feb01.pdf proves what i said about al this, so also not correct to made these dissapear for the readers
There are a lot of brands and models from a lot of other manufacturers! not only nsd!
Prove that you are trying to damage others is in the top of this txt you say first that it reaches only 6000 RPM after that you say 8000 and so on.
So for editors clean this mess up to real info and not this marketing from a nsd person!!
Lawsuites have also proven that other nsd persons which where talking bad about dynabee had to place a rectification because they where so wrong!
You know, there is no nonsense in here. As I've mentioned in the article, dynaflex and nanosecond holds all the major patents for powerballs. There is a workaround of these patents by the other companies and people, but I am not talking about it - I am talking facts to you. Check the patent information provided in the article and see for yourself. Your "prove" that I am damaging something is nothing - I told you information from the official internet sites of these products. When you've told me about "turbo" model, I saw that it can achieve 8000RPM. For example, I can almost achieve 13000RPM with my powerball, and I am just a normal and regular person without any special training or skills. And again, the lifetime warranty for powerball talks for itself, isn't it? The article from "houston horizon" says the same thing - about the first inventor of Powerball. Speak facts, and stop harming the article with your imagination. Thank you. Also, you can try to reach me via ICQ - 499117, and try to argue there. Dmitrek13:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you say achieve 8000 rpm it also say that that is not the maximum.
Also the German prof tell the speeds could reach far beyond 10000RPM in the article
Why 8000 its a 'kind of common training speed not trying to get max speed, the purpose of the product is training your arms and wrists not hurting them! ( that why also on nanosecond powerballs manuals the warning if you feel pain stop stop !) ( we have an medical expert (therapist) report of this that say's not to get that max speeds for a longer time because its not giving you the power that you can reach by training short periods with less speed, only for fun and competetion yes max speed but as in top sport it can damage your muscles for a short period ( i don't know the English term for it) Overdone is overdone and not good at all.
Lifetime warranty is for all of these products?
You say also that ironpower is copy that is not true because it was the first metal on the market in 2004.
Dynaflex is not the holder of the patents, the original patents of the gyro principe's are outdated yes and therefore some changes as nanosecond has done with the counter but thats it.
Please stop saying nanosecond and dynaflex are the only real ones and manufacturers as told the first was variety plastics.
There is also a old model patent out of holland 1994 and so on believe me that was the date that i started to practice with dynabee models that are all still alive now so more then 12 years and still working.
More power also because the turbo pro has larger measurements and weight as you can see in the Houston formulas that means simple more powerful!
All people testing these two the nsd and turbo pro agrees with me.
A judge did to so why keep on trying to make some stories that are not that important to the facts of the principe explaining in wiki of the powerball gyro exercisers concept.
And stories about succesors and so on thats only marketing commercial bullshit ( sorry for that word) and has nothing to do with the prinicipe and explanation of the gyro power effects.
Thats also why the links of these explanations though German and English should be staying in the article, because they are neutral and real! ( from university people and profs)
Scratch all the names of brands or name them all, not giving credit to brands that have copied the principe from the gyro because patents outdated and they used it to make only little changes as you can read in the university article so they can keep on saying we have the only patented gyro wich is not through because if so there was no possibility for others at all.
That also where on the Market before Nanosecond was.
Yes there are others saying we are the succesors as for example the manual powerball says.
Its simple every little change are extra options and not doing things with the real first gyro powerball principe of a rotor in a shell that is turning arround his two axis
And the first on the market with that patents was dynabee and still is, dynabee give others space to produce after outdating the patents, and then people as you are saying that some options as counters are that important that they can be called succesors?
Then every new automobile from wich brand does not matter? is a succesor of the one before also if it's from another brand and therefore better.
You know yourself that that is not correct, only small things are changing in the cars to, between models and brands, but they still are cars.
To call a new porsche the succesor of the mercedes car before that is the same false statement.
Yes the porsche can have some options the mercedes don't have, but doesn't make it the better car. Only for some purposes yes it could be! But not for all try to do a lot of shopping or have some passengers in it?
Yes for the same models from the same brands they can call them succesors so new audi a4 for the new audi a4 but that is also no succesor in the way of new invention of the principe of the car itself only in design and options it could be. ( and we all know newer doesn't always means better!)
I hope you understand now why calling brand or/with models, succesors can be so wrong, if the basis prinipe is still being used only with some extra's and for the principe of working though minor options.
Please try to read the complete german part and also the patents themselves from 1973 and 1994 then you read the newer ones and you see yourself!
What is major patent?
a counter as option no it is not dynamo with leds no because it was there in 1994 before Nanosecond did patented this in 2001 and so on.
The only major patent is the principe of the rotor in the shell and so on because thats the part that give the working power to these products and these patents are whoever names are on it outdated.
Therefore calling brands after the first real inventor and commercial use dynabee is ok as you name them all and not talking bad of them or others or make a lot of marketing stuff, because wiki is not for this reason!!!!!!!! ;)
Also read the above 2000 sience of Gullick that the explanation of it then saying that others as nanosecond has made some extra options as counter for it yes ofcourse that is through and OK
Others as Ironpower has made the first metal version on the market yes thats through.
Others as manual power has made a model with a kind of powerplant for mobile phones yes thats through.
I hope because your english is much better you can review and change your part a bit so that it will be respectfull for every brand and the real first inventors.
Without marketing or commercials in it
Then ofcourse i wil not change it, and the result a good complete Wikki about Dynabee is for every one there ;)
Dynaflex was not there in 1973 and 1994 that was variety plastics, later a former employee of variety grounded dynaflex made som copies of the dynabee and now is working together with variety
So also the part that the original dynabee inventor is dynaflex is not through you can see the websites in wayback machine on internet that Dynabee and Dynaflex where compatitors in the past.
Dynaflex was about the first that made coppies of the dynabee in taiwan/china where also then the cooperation with Nanosecond started. as for your information.
We had good connections and contact with Ken Pravitz the owner of Variety plastics and Dynabee before he died, out of respect for him the wiki info should be correct and that also why i place this reaction. ( he brought this invention in the 1970's and 1990 to the world)
Most of it you can read in some articles on websites and lawsuites that has been in the last 2 years
This article has been vastly improved upon since the first of the new year, and am interested in taking this article up Feature Status on behalf of all those who have dilligently worked on this article.
Hi Judge, I intended to give this a proper peer review (hopefully) tomorrow, but I'll mention a few things here for the mean time:
Most important: more references!
The ikelley reference is pretty weak, can you find a better source?
The "White Wolf" reference isn't really needed unless it contains something you're using that's not listed in the game's credits. It might not hurt to keep it as an ext. link, though. And why does it say "White Wolf"?
Work the important trivia points into the main prose and delete the rest.
Are those large boxes at the head of each version pretty accepted? They seem like a little overkill.. This will also get slammed in FAC for having too many fair use images.
The bulleted lists of changes should be rewritten as prose. I notice one bullet says "New events" — that's not very informative to the reader.
Its a great article, certainly a favorite game of mine. A couple of comments:
*More references
Further reading if possible. There must be some books out there devoted to the art of these excellent games.
There do not appear any books in print that I can find about Final Fantasy IV artwork in particular, though there are others of the later games Judgesurreal77706:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*I would like to see some further information about the fantastic music of this game, which has been recorded by other various artists I believe
Over use of brakets. I don't believe examples have to be in brackets. For example, tt would be less jarring to read
In the original game, almost every status ailment and a corresponding item used to cure it. For example, Petrification and Poison would be cured by "Golden Needle" and "Antidote" respectively.
Thus far, References cleaned up, character names debolded, trivia incorporated, boxes deboxed, paragraphs de-listed. If anyone has any Final Fantasy art books are other things let me know! Judgesurreal77722:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is starting to look really good. It's come such a long way since the new year. Two things I'd really like to see are...
Expand the music section. I don't know how much that can be done without being too crufty. But if nothing more than a sentence can be written about it, I don't think it really deserves it's own subsection.
While I do think it's a good idea to display the various versions' respective box art, at some parts of the page, it looks very cluttered. The images should be made smaller and displayed in a more effective way.
Thanks for the help, I think a once over of the article text as a whole to check for readability since it has been much changed in the last 48 hours to comply with the peer review. Also, could we check about the fair use rationale? I added links at the bottom of the page to the rationals, and all of them have explainations on their image pages, is that sufficient?Judgesurreal77723:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I like that the different versions section has been split into its own article, since I think it decontextualizes the information. Moreover, moving that information away has removed most of the release information for the remakes. I'd like to see that information restored to the article in some fashion (preferably without having to shoehorn it all into the main infobox), and preferably in a quick-reference format, since all searches for these remakes (such as Final Fantasy IV Advance) are going to lead directly to this article. Either a table like this, or via "stacked" infoboxes like here. I personally prefer the latter, since I think the former is a bit of an ugly space-waster, but provided the information gets presented in some format, I'm not overly bothered. – Seancdaug05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I just wanted to shrink that section down, it was enormous. :) Could we go with the former setup? I agree it looks much better. Judgesurreal77705:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we must, I suppose <grin>. I really loathe those big horizontal tables from a design perspective, since they tend to grow very large and very unwieldy, and interrupt the flow of the page. But I've had this argument with other editors in the past, and I think I'm in the minority. Again, the most important part is that the information be there in some form or another. – Seancdaug05:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I insist you do it YOUR way! :) I see your point, it is getting to be a very good looking entry, wouldn't want to uglify it! lol Judgesurreal77705:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thus far we have addressed every issue except:
Add a game version chart, possibly delete List of versions page
Check on parentheses use, size of music section, number of pictures, fair use rationale.
Personally, I'd trim it down by two or three paragraphs, myself, particularly if previous experience with the failed Final Fantasy VI FAC means anything. This much information on the fictional aspects of the game is liable to derail attempts to raise the article to featured status. – Seancdaug02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're making some good progress on the story, Deckiller. If possible, could you rewrite the first paragraph to create a spoiler-free paragraph that could be placed above the spoiler warning? Pagrashtak02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ^_^. Do you think it should include some of the info already in the first paragraph, up to, say, the whole Village of Mist incident? Deckiller02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to add this but got an edit conflict: I think anything before the destruction of Mist could safely come before the spoiler warning. Pagrashtak03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a strong look, and various writing edits, does it look good? Everything ready for a Featured Article Submission? Speak now! And then, vote for it to be one if you are satisfied :) Judgesurreal77701:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's wise to jump immediately into an FA submission, actually: part of the criteria for featured status is that the article be stable. In light of the massive changes resulting from this peer review, the article is not particularly stable at this point. I think we've got a better chance if we wait (at bare minimum) a week or two and make sure that the changes are going to stick. – Seancdaug02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I waited about 3-4 days to get the Patriots article into FA submission; then again, the peer review was awesome, but not as extensive as this one. I'd say at least 4-5 days. Deckiller16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crazy about that table in the remakes section. If you put a sidebar up on your browser, there's about one or two words per line. I think there could also be a section discussing technological improvements from the NES games (use of Mode 7 during airship flight for example?), and there should be some mention of localization/censorship in the development section. I don't think the article would pass FAC at the moment. Pagrashtak01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are we doing now? I added what I could about super nintendo versus nintendo technology and its use in the game, and the other critiques seem answered.....what else do we need to do to make everyone say "Agree" when we put this up for consideration? Judgesurreal77701:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm probably harping on this point, but while I don't think List of Final Fantasy IV versions should be a seperate article, that doesn't mean that I think the information contained within should be lost. I'd like to see it merged back into the main article, though it probably should be mercilessly edited down to a more digestable size (two or three paragraphs for each section, perhaps?). – Seancdaug04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great thinking, I hope someone jumps on that :D I am not the best yet at the writing aspect of Wikipedia, so if any brave soul wishes to, please go for it, we are SO close :) Judgesurreal77704:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, to get the release versions information, just go back in the Final Fantasy IV history, I had the versions page and the box art pages deleted as we discussed. :) Judgesurreal77707:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have worked hard on getting the facts of this article correct. It has also recently been improved a lot by the medicine collaboration of the week. It would be nice to get some feedback especially from people with a non-medical background. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. --Bob00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are too many lists in this article, and especially in sections like "Prevention of sexual transmission of HIV" the bulleted items should be converted to prose. And could an inline citation be added for "Alternative theories"? AndyZ23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The estimate that "AIDS has killed more than 25 million people" should include a date stamp, so the reader knows when that was true. (Also so it can be updated later.)
The red links should be addressed.
The origin of the Red Ribbon symbol needs to be explained, or at least a link provided.
Down in the "Symptoms and Complications", in a number of cases the bulleted diseases are listed in bold face, and are immediately followed by the same disease name with a link. Please fix this redundancy.
Something I don't think I see addressed in the article are some common falacies regarding AIDS. I.e. in the nature of rumors and propaganda. A number of people treat those as factual, so it would be nice to see some coverage from a neutral perspective.
This has been minimized, but when HIV and AIDS are intrinsically linked, there will be some repitition. This has been reduced to transmission, epidemiology and treatment. No discrepancies are obvious for the moment.
Done.
There are now no red links in the article.
Red Ribbon has been linked to and that article improved.
I recently looked up this subject on Wikipedia and was surprised to find a very well-written and comprehensive article. I've fixed all the obvious things, such as adding images, formatting references as inline, and reordering some sections of text. I'd like to know how you think I can improve this further. Thanks! - Samsaracontribtalk16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very well written and very well organized. Specific comments first--
Together with Squamata (which is its sister group), the tuatara belongs to the group Lepidosauria, the only survivor of Lepidosauromorpha.
This is a little confusing, makes it sound like the *tuatara* is the only surviving member of Lepidosauromorpha, rather than Lepidosauria. Might want to re-word to clear that up.I changed that passage - does it read well now?
Testudines (turtle and tortoise) skulls were once believed to be the most primitive among amniotes, but newer research suggests this is not the case, as they might have lost the temporal holes in the skull secondarily rather than never having had them.
This is still controversial (though I personally tend to agree with it), and the placement of turtles as anapsids is used on most Wikipedia entries, so I'd tone down the langauge here to something like "...skulls are widely believed to be..." and "...some research suggest this may not be the case,...". I'd also include a cite for the relavent papers on non-anapsid turtles.
The real ribs are very special too, as small projections, pointing and hooked little bones, are found posterior of each rib (uncinate processes, also seen in birds).
A minor issue, but I'm not sure "very spcial" is the right phrase here. Something along the lines of "distinctive" or "unique", I think, would be more appropriate.I originally preferred distinctive, since the feature is also found in birds, but now settled for "remarkable". How does that sound?
A fossil of an ancient reptile called Homeosaurus looks very much like modern tuataras.
Minor--Homeosaurus is missing italics.Done.Slightly less minor--the two paragraphs on taxonomic history are a little out of place between paragraphs on anatomy. If you opt to add sub-headings, I'd find a way to combine these two paragraphs and the opening paragraph of the section into one subsection on classification. Made a start, do comment on flow if you have time!
Overall the anatomy sction is very comprehensive and fairly easy to understand. The only general change I'd make is the addition of sub-headings, since it is pretty lengthy. I can't comment much on the Natural History section, but I don't notice any errors or poor wording. The only other thing about the page I'd change is in the taxobox--a number of us (see talk pages such as Sauropsida and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life) have decided to follow more modern classification schemes and use Class Sauropsida in place of Class Reptilia, so you may want to change tha for the sake of standardization (though as the tuatara is a living reptile, I'd keep th link to Reptile instead of Sauropsid, using (Reptile|Sauropsida).Yep, agree and changed this.
Many thanks for your comments. I agree with all of them, and will put them into practice as soon as possible. I've also asked some other people to comment. - Samsaracontribtalk19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am both shocked & annoyed that you wouldn't consider me for peer reviewing an article to do with my expertise! Shocked, I tell you, shocked!! Front side of coin with tuatara.
1) The article doesn't have an obvious piece of information: That the tuatara is on the new zealand 5 cent coin, set to be discontinued in october this year.That's a brilliant little detail - thank you very much!
2) Refs!!! 99 billion percent of the article is un cited! This is the biggest sin one could commit if attempting to get an article to FA status. If you find a piece of the information on here in a book or magazine, type it in the references! Anything! I'm telling you, finding references is the hardest thing you have to do & the most vital thing you have to do to get it to Featured status.
3)An easy task: Swap the external links & the references sections around, as refs should be above the external links. EG:
Refs section
Refs section should be here.
External links section
External links section should now be here, below the refs.Done.
4)Great work on the pics! Last time I visited the page, there were literally 2 pictures! However, the sketch/drawing of the tuatara towards the bottom is way too big compared to the other pictures. Further, the picture of a tuatara at Hamilton zoo is too small. Enlarge it slightly. other than that, great job.Done.Spawn Man03:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. Scrath out my list so you can keep track of what you've done. I'll help where I can.[reply]
I find the Anatomy section hard to read, it flows pretty bad. Most of it seems like a list of features, and there is a constant use of "it". It would be best if the beginning of paragraphs begin with "The tuatara". Once you get to the Classification section, the flow greatly improves. --liquidGhoul04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zoos
Great page, which I'm not the best placced to comment on. I would say the list of zoos is certainly not comprehensive, and seems a little arbitrary, (1st page of google search found four other overseas zoos and two other NZ zoos with Tuatara), but this should be sorted out by someone who actually knows the subject.I found three overseas ones (Chester, St Louis and San Diego) and several NZ. If you can add the fourth overseas one, that would be great! I'll deep breately and not go on a personal rant about the use of the word primitive :-). Winstonwolfe05:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite of derived is basal, but that might need a ("primitive") tagged onto it anyway, since most people have never heard that term.Dinoguy201:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just woken up and found all those comments - great and many thanks! Just to appease the more strongly wording of my reviewers: I didn't write the article, and I'm not an expert on the subject, so if you want to contribute references, great! - Samsaracontribtalk11:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coin subject
Hi, I submitted the comment about the tuatara coin above. However, if you read the liscencing on the picture itself, it says it "should only be used to show the coin itself, not any mural or thing depicted on the coin". Above, I only used the coin as an example to show you what it looked like. Sadly, it cannot be used in the article, as this would be in breach of copyright. So although the info can be included, the pic cannot. This matter would also surely arise at a FAC discussion too, so I'm just telling you now. Other than that, great job on completing most of my requests. Spawn Man01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC). As a side note, by references, I meant written, printed ones, as voters seem to dislike an article comprised only of external link refs.[reply]
I understand what you mean by references, but the fact is that I don't have any available to me.
As for the coin, I would like to avoid having a "trivia" or "tuatara in pop culture" section, as they're naff, attract nonsense, link spam and other vermin, and tend to get spun out into separate articles before too long anyway.
It's not the fact that I want to create problems or that I want the trivia section. The fact is, is that it is the law. If you read the liscence on the photo, you'll see what I'm talking about. The article will not get featured if it has a copyvio. Believe me, I've written a FA... Spawn Man19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments, (1)the article is badly in need of citations for the anatomy section, and there are other things that really dont need then (like the list of zoos with the species; (2) There is no point reinventing the wheel, there are several featured animals and they all use the same sections (which is useful for the reader and creates conisitency across Wikipeida), see White's Tree FrogIsland Fox and Short-beaked Echidna for examples.--nixie00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the Tuatara is significantly present in Maori, that should be in a section by itself, I think. Circeus00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now Sphenodon punctatus redirects to tuatara, but S. guntheri has its own page. S. punctatus should either be bolded in the taxobox and at some other point on the page or get its own article. Perhaps an explanation that the article is largely about S. punctatus is in order at some point. --Aranae04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's an interesting article, I don't think it's quite ready for FA status. The page needs illustrations, many more links, and in-line references to confirm the various assertions. It also suffers in places from non-neutral commentary. For example, the following line is quite out of place: this is SO wrong ,the wikipedia article on Dj Qbert states he is wrongly credited. Thanks. — RJH16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that the quote you are referring to is EXACTLY what prompted me to submit the article for review? What was the "FA status" remark about? What specifically about my submission gave you the impression that I had any interest in feature articles at all? Also, why on earth would I submit this article?
There are probably a half-dozen other questions along these lines that I could raise. My hope is that you will elucidate your remarks. Needless to say, I am completely nonplussed by your remarks — which has the look and feel of a Parthian shot. For the time being, I shall assume that your response, while unintentionally insulting, is well intended... Folajimi19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, right. Per the introduction at the top, "This page ... is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." Given your inflamatory tone, I see no point in addressing your misplaced rancor. I have nothing further to add. Goodbye. — RJH
There are still those who believe that PR shouldn't just be FAC foreplay. I tend to agree. Otherwise, I think you both need to chill.
This is just an article about a school that I attend. I am not sure if a peer review is the right approach . . . but I want to make it the best article possible. Any and all constructive criticisms are welcome. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice-looking, decently-developed article, with just a few areas needing enhancement. But I have a few comments.
Could the introduction at the top be expanded to something along the lines of the FA-quality Caulfield Grammar School article?
I looked through the entire article and nowhere could I find where it gave the grades supported. I did see 9th through 12th listed, but is that the full range? Please clarify this in the introduction.
The list of annual events needs some dates, or date-range criteria.
There are an awful lot of bulleted lists on the page. Can any of those be converted to prose or tables?
The core values of the "Educational Objectives, Mission and Vision" is reading like a vanilla mission statement. It seems like this could be modified into neutral prose commentary.
Finally, it's a minor point, but could the table at the top include the school colors, per Caulfield Grammar School.
OK, I have tried to clear up these problems as well as shortening the table of contents so the Clubs don't take up more space than the academics. I got rid of a number of lists and consolidated them into paragraphs, and tried to create a decent WP:LEAD and make the Ed. Obj. section a bit more neutral (not sure if I succeded). As far as I know, we don't have offical school colours. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no official school colors then you could always just say None. But based on the images I'd have taken the colors to be blue and white. So maybe that needs to be clarified? *shrug* — RJH16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have that listed under the "Schhol Uniform," so not sure if I should put them if they don't have any "official" colours. I will ask my principal and see what she says. Thanks. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - please be careful that the article doesn't come across as a pamphlet advertising the school. You may wanna look at FAs about schools - Caulfield Grammar School, Michigan State University. Expansion tips: school in perspective of schools all over India, curriculum standards, examination systems, current issues, etc. Good luck! Rama's Arrow05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like I am having some problems with that and I noticed that myself. I amtrying to work on making it more like an article and less like an advertisement . . . one of the problems I am having is that its the only school I have ever went to and don;t have much to compare it with. I will try to follow your suggestions though, although I know little of rankings in comparisons with other schools. I did try to touch on the exams . . . ICSEs . . . but it looks kind of naked. The clubs part I find is too long . . . E/C activities are important but I think the article makes them look *too* important and then I shoretend the list some. I will try some more. Thanks for your help! (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 13:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded this article from stub to what I think is fairly comprehensive, feature lenght. As I have been reading about Giddens only for the past two weeks or so, I am sure there is room for much improvement, nonetheless I think this is close to FA level. What do you think? Note that I cannot find a single copyleft picture of him :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:
Quotes shouldn't be in italics, see the MoS
The selcet bibliography seems to be a list of all his books, either trim it to the most important publications or change the name. Isbn's might be useful.
Who are his intellectual peers and what are the criticisms of Giddens hypotheses - the article never presents his work in the context of other workers in the field.
I'm not sure the long summaries of his conclusions add a lot to the text, especially the summary of New Rules - which seems tacked on and unnecessary (However it'd be a good addition to an article about the book).
The image could use an actual fair use rationale. It might be worth asking the LSE for a larger promotional image.
His role in the Blair-Clinton dialogues could aslo be expanded on.
This is actually not a complete list - he has written over 40 books, not counting articles. I added some books I've mentioned in the article to the list, but it's still not complete. As for ISBNs, I agree, but I hope sb else will do it :>
I added the college info. I couldn't find anything about his parents.
That's a tough one. I included most of what I know in the article - it can surely use the help of more people.
I guess it can be moved, if such an article is created.
Added rationale. Good point about contacting LSE, I will do that.
Quite likely, but I know almost nothing about them (yet).
I been wanting to make an FA on a Russian subject, and due with me working with a user on a off-WP project related to this anthem, I got the encouragement needed to work on this article. I tried to make this article like My Belarusy, the Belarusian anthem (also an FA), and I also introduced a succession box for the anthem history of Russia. While, of course, y'all are welcome to comment and suggest about anything to your hearts content, but I wish to ask specifically if we should fork out the "adoption" section into a larger article about the Anthem debates and if the pictures I used are OK in the copyright department. Thanks again. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)Fair use policy03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have a couple of comments:
In the definition, you say: "Russian: Государственный гимн Российской Федерации, Gimn Rossiyskaya Federatsiya". I am not sure what you meant by "Gimn Rossiyskaya Federatsiya" - were you going for a transliteration of the Russian name? If so, it'll need to be corrected. Let me know if you need help with that.
The translation of the anthem is very good, but it's not perfect - there are a couple of lines where the translation is inexact. For example, "Братских народов союз вековой" is translated as "Fraternal peoples, a union for the ages". It is grammatically incorrect (it should be "A union of peoples", not "peoples, a union") and inexact: "союз вековой" means a union that lasted for centuries, not a union that will last for ages.
I screwed up with the transliteration, but the translated lyrics were already there when I got to the article. I will ask the webmaster of Hymn.ru to see if I can use his translation (Vadim Makarov is a personal friend of mine). If you want to fix the translations too, that will be perfect, since I am only ru-1. Thanks again and if there is anything else I am missing, please let me know. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)Fair use policy21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently re-written this article completely and would appreciate any improvements or feedback peope would care to give. I would like to get the article classed as a Good articles, it's not anywhere close to an FA... Cheers SeanMack03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review - I've added some data from an american army webpage - so I'm assuming it's PD and therefore usable directly. It's been a while since I studied chemistry so I think I'd have to leave a more detailed picture so someone with more experience. I appreciate the time you took to have a look and make a suggestion. Kind regards SeanMack17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a bulleted list of chemical properties, I'd like to see the page get a table similar to that found on the Acetic acid page, which was an FA. Thanks. — RJH23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The chemical property list (there is already a long list on the right side of the article)would be OK if the chemical abilities would be in the first place, but here the features of CS are more the point. May be a data subpage with chemical information will do. This is also done at the Acetic acid and othe chemicals pages. Stone15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you both for your comments. I invite you to check the page to see the changes I have implemented based on your feedback. Regards SeanMack01:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Single-paragraph sections are already considered poor layout. so single-sentence ones? Consider merging them in "Elsewhere"
"Production": Are there other ways it can be produced? Has it always been produced so? Who discovered the gas' properties? Can you buy it? Whatform is it usually found in? (spray cans?)
How does the gas act on the body (e.g. why, physiologically, is it so effective?)
Tear gas can remain stagnant in clothes and materials. There were complains in Quebec City after the Summit of te Americas there that several houses still stank of the stuff months after.
The image in "decontamination" looks randomly added just so there'd be a picture there.
Will add some refs for synthesis on monday (Corbson JACS 1928 page 2825 and Pande Org Proc Res Devel 2005 page 133) stone also patent numers for industrial production!--Stone10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First the lead section should contain a summary of the whole article.
Chemical production I will upgrade.
Preparation should be renamed. To some what more specific. Should be also a full text.
Colourless gas when burned – unclear - better sublimation or heated.
History section with discovery and development and first use would also be good.
The effects on humans should also be have own section, like physiology effects or so. With references!
The section Non-lethal? Other title and the Uwe Heinrich paragraph can be short as the other ones.
The table has not the same style like the chemicals from the project:chemicals .
Thanks for your interesting article; it's a subject I've always found quite fascinating. Some of the elements of the article are more speculative than others—I'd like to see the speculative aspects have references. For example, the final paragraph in "History of scholarly study". In general the article needs lots of in-line references to back up the various assertions.
Biggest problems: There are no inline citations. Many images are marked with deprecated licensing tags. This article focuses too much on Mars and Venus as opposed to the general concept of terraforming. Random example of stuff that needs cleaning up: Mirrors made of extremely thin aluminized Mylar could be placed in orbit around Mars to increase the total insolation it receives. Sure, it could. Is this a widely accepted proposal? By whom? What are the alternatives? How else could this be acheived? Is it practical? Pagrashtak23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the mirrors proposal, the concern I would have is that they can be susceptible to displacement due to solar radiation, which would tend to knock them out of orbit. They'd need some type of compensating force to remain stationary, such as "tacking". Good catch. :) — RJH16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Place "non-breaking spaces" between the values and the units so that they are not word-wrapped (separated) onto different lines. Get some inline citations in there, preferably in the m:Cite/Cite.php style (see Hugo Chavez for an example of how this system works). Since this seems like an interesting topic use the inline citations to point a reader to where they can further research a topic, "Cloud-top colonization", for example, (seriously) where can I go to read about that? Consider [17] for some online sources, like Fogg who has written several papers and this for an Iranian summary. I'm not sure of the validity of the "Popular culture" section...might want to stick that in the "See also" section. Avoid those one-sentence paragraphs (not a sign of brilliant prose), some of those can form the introduction sentence to a paragraph (like in "Converting atmosphere"), and others can be merged as a phrase in the previous paragraphs (like in "Paraterraforming"). --maclean2516:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting and informative article. But it still needs some work. In addition to the most serious problem of missing inline references, I would like to point to the red links. Should they have place in a potential featured article? As for the structure, space devoted to two prominent cases (Mars and Venus) seems to be disproportionate to the discussion of the concept itself. The “Other worlds” section is very short, though I guess it would be quite difficult to expand it in a meaningful way. Moreover, the “Paraterraforming” section does not seem to be very well integrated in the article’s structure. The introduction also mentions political and economical issues, though they are not addressed in the article at all. Finally, it would be perhaps interesting to think a bit about possible consequences of the terraforming process for any local human population (for example colonists living in earlier built domes). Are the two concepts of colonization reconcilable?Tankred10:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sort out the image situation. Photo credits can be done on the image page itself, rather than in captions. If possible, get the one with the credit in the image in white lettering out of it (if the creator was a Wikipedian). Put a summary of the pop culture in the article. Sorry I couldn't actually read the text in detail, look over it once more, get more references, maybe contact a WikiProject, and then submit this for a FAC.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, inline citations. Secondly, concentrate on more than just Venus and Mars - how about Europa (I'm sure I've read this somewhere) - the article should be about general principles, with specific examples in sub articles. Lose the commercial pictures and credits. For each of the red links create a stub article. Throwaway sentences like However, all these bodies come with conditions that make terraforming difficult to imagine. need to be expanded or removed. The popular culture section should have a paragraph (maybe the lead from the linked article) giving an overview. Its looking good though, keep up the work :) - FrancisTyers11:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A beautiful song by an artistic electronic group. I despise detail, but in the case of "Number 1", any suggestions, comments, objections and etcetra can be provided here. I am hoping to promote this article to a higher standard. —Eternal Equinox | talk02:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a decent page. However a number of questions came to mind that I didn't see addressed.
For somebody who hasn't heard the song, did it have any lyrics?
What were the lyrics about?
Was some type of message intended by the song authors? Was it upbeat, cynical, or something else?
Was there any specific critical analyses of the music you could relate? Why were the reviews mixed?
Do you have any references to confirm this information?
I'd also like to see instances of top-ten, top-twenty, and top-thirty be hyphenated to eliminate potential ambiguities. Thanks. — RJH16:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is very close to FA status, and I'd like some extra eyes on it as that goal is approached. Citations have been...well, cited as one thing that may hold it back, and, in my opinion, that's all it really needs. I think this article needs some feedback from the rest of the community as a whole now. —BorgHunterubx (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:
Footnotes and references are needed.
There are some POV sections, such as the meanings of songs without sources, styles of play, and so on. That needs to be worked on.
Like I said earlier, I've worked extensively on this article in the past, and I'm willing to continue working on it (references, trimming, etc.). I should have some free Wiki time today. Deckiller16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just from a quick glance: The complete lack of references is definately the article's biggest problem. Another problem are the images: They all lack fair use rationales, and most of them are uploaded too large to qualify as fair use. The discography also seems to make unnecessary use of fair use images (the album covers). Also, years and month are overlinked: Both should generally not be linked, unless part of a complete date (e.g. February 242006), see date formatting. And the RIAA certifications under Awards seem to just repeat what was already listed in the discography. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1989 To Present needs a sort out, it's way too long (split it down into smaller year groups if need be, or create a separate section about Neils troubles and other noteable incidents, maybe). Needs references. Compare with the featured Iron Maiden. I want this featured, problems should be easily fixed. Still prefer Steve Harris on bass, but y'know ;) --PopUpPirate00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of inline citatations, as mentioned above, which means that there are many unsupported claims, most of them reasonable, some doubtful.
Reads at time as a fan page, not an encyclopedia article, e.g. "It also showcases the instrumental talents of all three band members with aplomb." I say this as a Rush fan since the late '70s.
The article is too long and this leads to reader fatigue. The problem is too much detail on the individual albums. General readers will only need three or four sentences on each album at most; they can click on the articles for the individual albums if they want more. Editors here have done a nice job dividing the band's career into periods, but tighten those sections, and move extra details to the album articles.
Tighten wording elsewhere too. For example, we don't need to be told Geddy's and Alex's real names in the first sentence, and then again in the early history of the band. The second mention is all you need.
Overlinking of common words here and there (e.g. "book" and "daughter") and then no linking at all for something like "September 11th", meant to indicate the terrorist attacks. That's just sloppy editing, a common problem when an article is too long and one person rarely reads the whole thing in a single pass.
No mention of why people who don't like Rush typically give as a reason: they don't like Geddy's high-pitched vocals. I've heard that one many, many times, and so it might be worth a mention if it can be documented. Also mention that New World Man was the first song that Geddy sang which didn't make dogs howl. ;-)
Also mention, perhaps, that Rush was (still is?) perceived as a band for geek-types. Rush was never really a band that the "cool kids" listened to, and was never very fashionable with the critics either. (The album title Permanent Waves was a swipe at this perception: the "cool" people were into "New Wave music" back then, but Rush were asserting a claim to something less faddish and more "permanent".) Is there any documentable writing on this aspect?
This is an article I've been working on for quite a bit. The first PR/FAC was before I was really familiar with Wikipedia. I've tried to really improve the section most requested through both processes, history, and generally spruce the article up. Any advice on what else to do before making a more serious push for FA status? Staxringold15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but I feel like I've already done it. Hopkins, at least IMO, is no longer plagued by the traditional issues school articles face of thin history sections, short sections and subsections, and POV from current students. I'm looking to see if there's anything else to do before that final leap. Staxringold12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a quick look, I don't see any great problem. Personally, I like the idea of mentioning a few (but not most) of the famous alumni, in the school article itself, and include maybe just one picture of them. Discussion of sports acheivements, if its been covered might be good (instead of just listing off the sports). History seems to be well covered now. I think what could be improved, really depends on what media coverage the school has gotten in modern times. I would look for news stories on the school, and base it a little on that (without using transient information). Basically, I like to have an article look like it wasn't written by somebody from the school and is personally familiar with all its details (like the list of sport teams), but rather, somebody who has only read about the school, and only knows what's written about it. But, of course, accomoditating my opinion could easily make it worse in the eyes of others. --Rob12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The summary for Famous alums is a good idea, although I tried to exactly follow the model of FA Caulfield Grammar School in that section. As for sports achievements, that is precisely the kind of stuff complained about in the first FA, that discussing small, local, largely NN events made the article too POV and non-encyclopedic. Staxringold12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very thorough and well-researched. It needs a good once over to make sure the entire article has the same tone of voice. Ambiguous phrases like "three somewhat divided" may be confusing to the reader. I would go for more definitive words such as "unofficially divided" or "informally grouped" or whatever terms fit the situation best. Davodd19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through about half this article and tried to tidy the prose, which is awkward throughout. With details about what facilities are on what floor of what buildings you will have objections if it goes to FAC that this inside trivia really isn't encyclopedic and is inappropriate for our site. As for specific objections:
First, you should find out what the legal name of the school is. You mention "formal" situations that "grammar school" is still used.
It's Hopkins School. The Grammar School suffix is not used in any organized fashion, it's just occasionally used on school letterhead and such.
Second, the caption of the 1911 students mentions the headmaster. What is his name? You identify a future headmaster in that caption so why not him? And in mentioning Lovell, is he particularly significant?
Lovell held the office for longer than any other headmaster and has a building named after him. I'll ask the archivist about who the headmaster is in that photo.
Third, the history feels very superficial, particularly the modern history, which is mainly details about what building opened in what year.
What specifically? I'm still working on the earlier parts of the section which will clearly be the longest part, but how should I word the modern history?
Fourth, the prose for the mascot really needs to be completely overhauled. It reads very poorly.
Ok, I'll give it a shot
Fifth, give us a few words about who John Malone is. What year did he graduate, what field did he make his money in? How much has he donated?
This is covered in more detail on the famous alumni page. I'll add a note in the history that he's in telecommunications. As for how much he donated, I can try to find out but they tend to keep numbers like that private.
Sixth, give us the full names of the people those buildings were named for.
Ok
Seventh, the date of the founding section is confusing. The papers speak of the fourth day of the fourth month and some believe this means May? At the time under English law, the year did not legally begin until March 25th, Lady Day. But I'd have to check about the numbering of the months this way. It's confusing and not strictly necessary. If the consensus is the school began in 1660, then go with that until you can get more certain facts.
I'll remove the confusing quote, but it's from Chronicles of Hopkins Grammar School, which is a very reputable historical source.
Eighth, you mention an "unofficial seal". I don't know what you mean. A person or a corporation has a seal or they don't. I haven't any idea what an "unofficial" one is.
Official seals of heraldry had complex records under English law. Hopkins just made this one up out of the clear blue sky.
Ninth, subjects are not capitalized, e.g. "science". Only in speaking of departments, e.g. "the Department of Science", should it be in caps.
Ok
Tenth, you say the school is "infamous" in its scheduling? To anyone aside from its students? I'd never heard of the school itself until I was asked to review this article.
Ok
Eleventh, sports shouldn't be capitalized in the "athletics" section.
Ok
Twelfth, you don't have much about the formal governance of the school. Is the Fund the governing body or is it separate from a board of trustees? Who are the trustees? How are they chosen? Self-perpetuating? Elected by alumni? What's the head man of the school called? Superintendent, headmaster, principal? Who is that person? How is he chosen?
Yowza.. I'll do what I can but that's a huge level of detail...
Thirteenth, when did the turnover in leadership you mention cease? Have recent leaders enjoyed a long tenure at the school?
I am still expanding the history section
Fourteenth, you mention the school's endowment. How big is it? (Yes, I see it in the infobox, but it ought to be in the article too.) How does this compare to other schools?
Where would I put it in the article? As for a comparison, that wouldn't serve much purpose as there aren't very many northeastern, American, prep schools still around from that era. Yale is a college, so that would be unfair. Maybe Roxbury Latin School, but that article makes no mention of the endowment and what I can find only mentions "financial aid" money, not neccessarily the full endowment.
Fifteenth, how does the current enrollment compare to the past? Is 650 typical of the last century? Has it been expanding, contracting?
Wow... Well, up until the 1920's classes were no bigger than 30-50 kids, though I can't speak to more recent years.
I know I sound fussy. I am. But from shepherding numerous articles of mine through the gantlet of the FAC voting, I'd like to see others spared similar grief before they get there because there are people fussier than me who vote. PedanticallySpeaking17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to merge some of the subheadings to keep everything at ==Level 2== if possible. Other than that, I've reviewed this article so much it makes my eyes water; we mus be getting close to an FA now. That bar is set extremely high, especially when compared to something like cities on FA, where many make the grade quite easily. Harro510:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is massively improved since the last time I read it (I especially love the history sections). The only suggestion I have is to rewrite the lead so it doesn't read like a promotional brochure for the school. I'd also bring in more of the history into the lead.--Alabamaboy14:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was broken out of Theatre last year and it has languished a bit. I would like to bring this up to FA status (it's obviously not there yet). What should be done here? What info should be added? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need some more information about what is contained in the theatre besides the stage. The greek part is very good talking about the skene and it's purpose, but in that information isn't included as you move through time. There should be talk about the nuts and bolts of theatres, the green room and cat walks and curtains and sandbags etc. Curtains are actually interesting I wonder when they were first used.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk13:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read through this a week ago and ponder it for a while. This is a tough one. I really don't have much to offer but a question as why the "History of theater construction" only mentions, Greece, Rome, England and "Contemporary". If there is a reason please explain it in that empty section between "History of theater construction" and "Ancient Greece". If there is no reason then consider adding what Asian (Japanese Kabuki) and African theatres are like and how they compare to these western ones. --maclean2505:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Pakistan is a country located in South Asia that overlaps onto Central Asia and the Greater Middle East".
Dear Pakistani brothers, such stupendous confusion of identity is embarrassing! Just pick a geographic region, any region, and stick to it. You owe it to little-little kids who may be using wikipedia for their school essays.
Pakistan is located in the Central Asia and the Greater Middle East. Take a look at the map on the Middle East page, and you shall see, under one classification scheme, Pakistan is included into this area known as the "Greater Middle East." Pepsidrinka12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shrinking Mughal Empire fell prey to the East India Company's conspiracies and the eventual collapse of the freedom struggle against the British by the Muslim leader Tipu Sultan, from 1749 to 1799, left the remnants of the Mughal Empire completely vulnerable.
Why does this refer to a South Indian ruler like Tipu Sultan ? What is the significance of 1749 ?
After a 60 year formal and generally unarmed struggle for independence, Pakistan came into existence on August 14, 1947 from the British Empire. Again why 60 ? What happened in 1887 ?
Even though the War of Independence was a joint Muslim-Hindu struggle to oust the British, the brunt of British retaliation was directed at the Muslim population of the empire, employing the infamous "divide and rule" policy. This suppression and subjugation helped set the stage for the creation of modern day Pakistan My history isn't very good but I doubt the historical accuracy of this. Tintin (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references to Tipu Sultan, the "East India Company's conspiracies", the 60-year struggle and the "divide and rule" policy have been removed and replaced by relevant things like the Lahore Resolution. Green Giant00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on a good job, Pepsidrinka. The following are some suggestions you might want to look into:
The History section is needlessly long. Consider not breaking it into sub-sections. A three to four paragraph detail on History should suffice. The purpose of having a Main History of Pakistan article is to elaborate on detail in that article and to restrict your discussion on the History of Pakistan to the most salient points in the Pakistan article. Also, don't use the {{seealso}} template - it clutters up the section.
Forms of Government should be expanded. I don't think you need a Political History subsection in the main article
Provinces and Territories - this section should be in prose form, per WP:MOS.
Geography is an important section, consider expanding on this.
Condence Demographics to prose form without subsections. You may want to break it down into 3-4 paragraphs, as necessary.
Apart from that, there seems to be a tendency, although not intentional, to highlight the positive aspects of the country. To maintain NPOV, you will need to discuss both positive and negitive aspects within the various subtopics. Cover communal/ethnic tensions, economic and political issues.
Also, to maintain NPOV and for users unfamiliar with Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute, please state Pakistan's position on Kashmir a-la the note on the India article.
You should probably include a section on "Sport" as well, discussing popularly followed sports as well as popular participatory sports.
The lead is poorly written. Pakistan is geographically in South Asia and from what it is written, it seems to want to be in the Middle East and Central Asia. Pakistan does not have cultural and linguistic ties with either. Please provide references to support this claim. The details on its location seem to be superfluous and makes a confusing match as to where Pakistan lies.
Why is Pakistan's membership in various organisations being discussed here? All countries are members of something or the other. Summarise Pakistan's unique history, geography culture instead.
Pakistan's border with China is not internationally recognised. A footnote should be applied as is done for India.
History should be summarised into 6 paras. See India
Fair use images should be removed from the article.
The article needs a reorganisation of sections. For example, tourism can be covered as a paragraph under the economy section. Section titles like roots are not encyclopedic.
Consider renaming wildlife section into flora and fauna and expand it accordingly.
History section should be shortened. Political history can be covered under history itseld, not under politics.
There is no need to have a separate section for political parties under the politics section.
I wish you all the best to get this article featured. I'd try to help with copyediting after the improvements suggested by peer reviewers above are taken care of. -- Sundar\talk \contribs08:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and History
I have restructured the lead per WP:LEAD and history per Wikipedia:Summary Style. Please follow a similar format for restructuring other sections within the article. Also, there seems to be nothing about the history of Pakistan post-1971. Please consolidate the history section by retaining only the important pieces of information and expanding on Pakistan's history as it relates to the 1980s through the 21st century. Nothing about the 2005 Kashmir earthquake or the Balochistan strife is mentioned.
I'm still not happy with the page size. It's too long and sections have too many subheadings. Cut down the page size to about 30-35 kb by moving the content to daughter articles and summarising the same here. (see India, Bhutan and Nepal) Secondly, the maps need to be NPOVd. so you'd need to contact someone skilled in graphics to NPOV them. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=14:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive-ness
Hi - I have concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article. It doesn't give a balanced or comprehensive description of Pakistan:
This article does not discuss infrastructural, government/political, economic problems and challenges in Pakistan.
All issues and info regarding Islamic fundamentalism in religion, society, culture, politics are scant.
History - this section has many glaring problems. The 1947-71 period when Bengalis were the majority - what about the problems, the onset of the civil war? What about "Basic Democracy" plan of Ayub Khan? There is one section badly worded on the freedom struggle, which suggests that the League took over from the Congress. This is nonsense - please represent the politics of the era factually. The League's popularity grew after 1937, but even then Badshah Khan's Congress controlled the NWFP, and the Unionist Muslim League controlled Punjab with the Akalis and Congress till 1942.
Foreign relations - War on terrorism? Taliban? Lahore Declaration 1998? Kargil War?
In-line citations - entirely missing from history.
Military services - user:Mercenary2k is preparing History of the Pakistan Army for FA status. There should be more coverage here about police, paramilitary and military of Pakistan.
I know there are difficulties in dealing with sensitive issues, but there is a huge gap on basic information on economy, society and government. Rama's Arrow22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eternal, I've decided that you are the busiest person in the FAC/peer review sections as of late, between these peer reviews and We Belong Together. Just don't stress yourself out with all the writing, and be sure to go outside and see the sunlight when you have a chance! :)
As for article suggestions, the majority of my suggestions for Paper Mario stand here -- i.e., sales, influences, awards, competition, and anything that would help someone who knows nothing of the Tales of... series, such as myself, understand its significance better.
After an admittingly quick overview of the article, I would suggest that the "Links to Tales of Phatnasia" be turned into prose. There's enough information there to be a couple paragraphs instead of a list. The "Playstation 2" section should be worked into the article itself. As well, the lead should be rewritten to focus less on its many release dates and more on why the game is noteable. Remember that the lead is what pulls you into an article you might not have read otherwise. If the lead is a list of release dates, you might lose people who would otherwise be curious of the article, no matter how good the article is.
Quick note here - part of criterion three for featured articles states that the article should comply with revelant WikiProjects. WikiProject CVG recommends this for lead sections:
Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first.
Ah, thank you Pagrashtak for bringing that to my attention, as I was not familar with that particular WikiProject and their suggestions regarding release dates in the lead. If that's accurate, then Eternal doesn't need to remove all that from the lead, although I would put it into the last paragraph of the lead and not start with release dates. --Ataricodfish05:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been brought up before; WikiProject consensus is that names, release dates, and platforms should come first, as specified. --Pagrashtak05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. Alright, I'll remain quiet on the lead then. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, as I mentioned earlier, I was unfamilar with the Wikiproject and just offering my own personal suggestions, and don't mean to mislead. Obviously, go with the Wikiproject first. Best of luck! --Ataricodfish08:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I normally don't play video games, but stumbled upon this game last November in a sale bin. I bought it, and it quickly became one of my favorite games. I think you've done a fabulous job with this article so far, and with some work it can become a featured article. Here are a few suggestions I have:
Move Storyline before Characters because the text in the Characters section about exsphere and regeneration do not make much sense unless you've either played the game or read the Storyline section first. Just to be safe, it's be best to assume the average reader of this article has not played the game.
Don't say "Lloyd is our hero", as that's written in the first person.
Don't list Sheena's summon spirits. They're not that notable.
Expand the part about discrimination under Themes. It plays a major part in the game and deserves more than a couple sentences.
Don't go into so much detail in the Battle section. It almost sounds like a players manual, not an encyclopedic entry.
In the PS2 version section cite some sources about load time, and that the general consensus is that the graphics and sound are inferior to the GCN version.
I prefer this order for RPGs: Gameplay, Storyline, Characters. Storyline definitely comes before characters because it's a pain to talk about the character's relations and nuances without already having lightly introduced the rest of the cast.
Characters: I'd rather prose-ify the whole section rather than have eight highly detailed one-paragraph sections.
Bad phrasing: "Lloyd is our hero" was mentioned above. "He is the only character other than Presea..." is unnecessarily confusing. The entire article could stand a good copyedit.
Storyline: Two really big paragraphs. Ouch. Split it into four or more paragraphs.
Themes: Another really big paragraph. Crikey.
Gameplay/Battle: Good up until the descriptions of "ultimate techniques"; cut out the ultimate techniques and the Japanses PS2 techs. Far too FAQy.
In general, avoid hard numbers referring to explicit game mechanics (ex. "Zelos' level 2 Personal skill...") or specific buttons ("The A button controls attacks and B controlling special moves; if "Guard" is mapped to R...") especially since this is a multiplatform game.
Have been working on this, and I'm trying to turn it into a decent complete article on this band, but I'm running short of ideas. It still seems 'scruffy' to me, but I'm ensure of what exactly to do to improve it further. Comments please :) -Halo20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions:
Album titles should be in italics, song titles (and singles) in quotation marks.
Remove album covers. They don't add to the article and are unnecessary use of fair use images.
Something similar is in Nirvana, a featured article, and I felt the article needded more images. I particuarly think the Jude Law single one adds something. Halo19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Notable parts of it should be merged into History, others omitted.
Sentences like "received acclaim for being more complex than many of their peers" and "consisted of many catchy pop-punk hooks yet while still offering something fresh and new compared to many other albums avaliable at the time." sound very POV and should be rewritten or sourced.
Good article, I really enjoyed it. It might be worthwhile citing a source for the hundred dollar Holiday EP claim. Also you should probably talk briefly about emo in the article - especially since the term is mentioned in the infobox and rightly or wrongly the band is often labelled as such (its songs form part of the iTunes Emo Essentials). That said, there doesn't need much more than a sentence on that. Quotes of lyrics might also improve the article. Really though none of what I have said is major problem and, as it is now, this is a good article with a very clear writing style. Cedars07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about Emo, but I was trying to avoid it as it may cause edit wars as lots of people are very funny about the term. Added a citation and slightly changed the wording about the Holiday EP even though I'm sure I've seen it go for more. I'll have a ponder about adding song lyrics quotes, but I'm not sure how exactly it could be done. Thanks for adding it as a good article, glad you enjoyed reading it and thanks for the recommendations Halo11:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pics are far too small. They are barely noticable. That would be the first thing to fix. Also, the same one appears twice. Tobyk77705:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
External links should be at the end. Also, I don't like footnote overload, but the article is rather light on inline citations (try to have at least oen per paragraph; I think that's a good rule of thumb). The last section with any major content (the paralympics one) has no footnotes at all. Anyone reading the article would wonder how reliable it is... Johnleemk | Talk16:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done inline for the Paralympics, but I've added a reference. I've also added a few missing inlines. How does it look now? Thanks, Andjam12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, but there's still some way to go. Good work so far, however. If you can get at least one footnote per paragraph (just a rule of thumb, no need to take it too literally), it should be good enough to go on FAC. Johnleemk | Talk14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
