This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Allen3(talk | contribs) at 10:10, 25 April 2006(→Requests: Archive of peer review requests that have received no new responses in last two weeks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:10, 25 April 2006 by Allen3(talk | contribs)(→Requests: Archive of peer review requests that have received no new responses in last two weeks)
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than three months.
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.
This underwent a previous peer review (See above) and most of the suggestions were implemented, and then a FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Supreme Court/archive1), which failed disasterously. I've attempted to address most of the issues from the FAC but would like another inspection of this articel by other sets of eyes, especially concerning the list of cases (How should they be presented? by case?/by sbject?, how much detail, etc). Finally, is there anything missing, or something that would drastically improve the articel or make it more interesting? 68.39.174.23803:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am responding to concerns raised by the peerreviewer.js on the page linked to above. Other comments (placed here), will be answered here.
Note! I've hacked together an infobox for this court to summarize some highlights of current operation. I'd definately like to see what people have to say about IT, as it significantly changes the look of the intro. 68.39.174.23810:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has recently undergone major additions and restructuring - I would appreciate your comments about it, especially if anyone has expertise in describing the architecture of listed buildings. I hope to submit it as an FA before long Rod21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that history is expanded. As of now, the history only reaches up to 1600, which IMO isn't very comprehensive (perhaps add recent events?)
The rest of the article is simply a list of buildings. More can certainly be added: culture, demographics, government structure, etc. For an example of a featured town, see Chetwynd, British Columbia (other FA cities can be found in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places). I suggest that this article follow a similar format to those found in the above category (same goes with Chew Stoke).
I've had a go at improving the history section and adding government and demographics sections - I will have a think about other possible addtions. Rod21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Character section needs to be expanded. I'd also change Publication history into just History and merge the sections about the films and his death into that, dropping the films' plots (there are seperate articles for those). A list of comic stories would also be nice. Maybe you could also add some more about the reception, how did the comics sell, what makes them so important in comics' history, how are they seen today? And were there any incidents where the publishers actually got into trouble (it mentions Kurtzman was afraid to publish it)? The article also needs to better quote its sources, and some POV things like "the tomcat we all know and love" need to go. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned the article up a bit. I don't really like the list of stories as it stands, and I'm not quite sure what you feel a list of stories would accomplish. The stories are all from the book The Life & Death of Fritz the Cat (printed in 1993), and the publication and creation dates are from the same source. (Ibaranoff2422:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Such a list gives the reader an overview over how many stories with the character where published, and over what time. As such they are quite noteworthy. Having such a section in articles about comic characters is also recomended by the WikiProject Comics. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has gone through a lot of cleanup and modification, both before and after Super Bowl XL. At the moment, the article seems ready for FA, though I am placing it here first to see what more is needed. PentawingTalk04:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I somehow managed to miss all the work that has been going on with this article. Great work to rescue such a mess. I take it you've already checked against other city FA's to make sure it covers broadly the right topics. But each subsection needs to be prioritized in what it covers too. The economy section gives a relatively very large amount of space to green autos when the big 3 have pretty much dragged their heels with that and have done little to none of the work. Most (all?) hybrid tech is licensed from foreign manufacturers and they have steadily opposed higher mpg standards and closing the loophole allowing SUVs to get the more lax truck emmissions standards. More space should be given to the decline of manufacturing and the woes of the auto industry. GM has been steadily losing market share and both Ford and GM's bond ratings have been plunging, Delphi and Visteon's problems, etc. The economy section could also stand to cover the state of the neighborhoods where most are in very poor shape but there are still pockets of fancy areas like Indian village, etc. The gov section could note the very high rate of property taxes but the consistent city budget problems and mismanagement. Along with covering how much of a mess the city is, you could cover some on the rebirth along the waterfront and the casinos. Also the high number of derelict buildings and large number of properties that owe back taxes because they can't keep track of them. Illich owes property taxes he still hasn't bothered to pay. The sports could note how bad the Lions have always been and a little bit about Hocketown and the prominence of the Wings. The schools section fails to note that just how bad the public schools are considered, and that I think all of the Catholic high schools have now moved out of the city. Wayne State's med school is among the largest by number of students in the country if not the largest (oops it does say that later). You could cut the formula one racing out of the sports since it's not there anymore unless it was a really big deal at the time and is worth mentioning for that. The Free Press marathon is billed as the only marathon to cross international borders, because I believe other smaller races do. And it's kind of a marketing gimmick anyway. The part in Windsor is very short. Could be worth noting the DMC is a level one regional trauma center and expanding the hospital bit some. So each section needs a little polishing like that. Finally once everything else is balanced, the lead needs a little work for POV balance, and you could even stand to note how bad the city's reputation is, it usually gets ranked among the worst. So that's a lot, but there's obviously been so much good work so far, it might as well be great. I'll follow this, but also let me know if you want another final review before FAC. - TaxmanTalk13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A search of the Archdiocese website finds U of D Jesuit High School and Loyola High School still listed as in Detroit (along with 15 other schools from elementary level to colleges). Rmhermen06:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it the article I read was about plans to close the last Catholic HS's, so that could either change, have changed, or be in the works. You should be able to find it in Free Press covg. - TaxmanTalk07:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basic review: 1) The article needs to be summarised as per summary style. Sections in the article reads more like a list converted to prose. The entire list of schools/radio stations etc. can be moved to a dedicated list article. 2) the temperature table looks ugly. Please remove/move =Nichalp«Talk»=14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and taken care of your immediate suggestions (removing the climate table, tackling the "list to prose" in the schools and radio sections). However, can you please be more specific as to which sections need to be summarized further, and if there are other "list to prose" areas that have yet to be addressed? Thanks. PentawingTalk19:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the TIME cover essential? It shouldn't be there unless its linked into the text in a meaningful way.
There doesn't seem much point breaking education into two sections, it just increases the length of the TOC and the two things are clearly related. The order of information seems a bit odd in the primary school section.
Again, the break up of demographics into overview and population seems superfilious as both sections are clearly discussing the same thing. Historical information should probably be reduced, or made apparent in the history section.
Economy seems to be lacking information on unemployment rates, and information on economic activites in the city outside the automotive industry.
I'm not sure about inclusion of the crime stats in the current form, they really don't mean much unless they are compared to a national average.
Historic population information would be more informative as a graph.
The two demographics sections are fairly long, each with a different emphasis (the overview focuses on general population descriptions while the population section focuses on statistics). Currently, I can't really see a reason to completely merge the two sections.
Done.
Comparison to U.S. averages included.
I am not sure about making the historic population information a graph. Not only has the table become a standard fixture in U.S. city articles, but a graph makes it more difficult to update information as they change (unless someone comes up with a better idea such as creating a Javascript/PHP script that translates statistical information to graph form without having someone try to find hard statistical data before creating the graph).
I disagree on the necessity of the population list, it is very hard for the reader to take in the information in that format. A graph - which is immediately informative, would be good for at least another 4 years. I have had a go at merging the two sections. The demographics section says that more than 1 million black people live in the area, but there are less than 1 million people in the city - something here needs to be clarified.--nixie04:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the population statistics. The article does mention that while there are more than 1 million blacks in the region, about 80% of them live within Detroit (which would make sense, since 81% of 951,000 is about 770,000, which is close to 800,000). Hence, I don't see a problem with population statistics. As for the graphs, there might be a possibility of creating one, though I have to look into it further (perhaps using a hybrid statistics table combined with a graph produced in Excel?). This would at least provide some hard numbers to work with for the next iteration. PentawingTalk04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good improvements. 1) I still really think the auto racing should be removed from the sports section unless it is seriously important. That would make room for more mention of the Lions awful streak (didn't they just set a record for the worst win-loss?), and the Pistons doing very well. I think those impact the city enough to warrant inclusion, though the Pistons are outside the city of course. 2) In the history paragraph starting "Detroit has endured..." there is an unfortunate proximity of race with the decline, almost implying that caused it. The text doesn't say that, but the placement in the same paragraph seems to. I don't have a handy solution, but that reads poorly. 3) The fiscal mismanagement of the city still needs a little more space I think. You'd have to do some more digging, but last I read they still don't even have a handle on all the properties owe taxes, but of the ones they do know there is a large amount owed. I can't think of the other important metrics, but the financial scandals and the general innefectuallness of the city council should appear in some good sources. 4) It looks quite good with some of these last fixes especially, though I couldn't offer enthusiastic support at FAC without some additional higher quality sources. Books, government studies, etc. - TaxmanTalk15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. In terms of the Grand Prix, Detroit is one of the few US cities that has had a sanctioned race. From a historical perspective, that's notable. I would just as soon not discuss the Lions misfortune nor the Piston's success - the reason being the roller coaster rides that has been the Tigers (84 World Champs) and Red Wings (aka "Dead Wings" in the same year). We need to have a measure of stability to the article to get past the FAC process. The Tigers are "not sucking" so far this year - who knows? Such is sports.
The proximity of racial tensions with the overall decline in the city exists. I think you agree we are not implying the two are directly linked, but we realistically can't disengage the two elements. There's an NPOV problem that we are constantly trying to avoid and present a "just the facts" synopsis.
As to fiscal management of the City, this was discussed a bit when the decision was made to do a daughter article to the Government section. Public financing, including property taxes, bond issues, sinking fund, et cetera, can get a little complex. Instead, there was a deliberate decision to move those matters to the subarticle and spend a little more time on the city vs. suburbs problems that have bogged down development (e.g., two separate bus systems).
I think the studies we have are quite good. I know I have done inserts from various Federal agencies. The majority, however, are press reports that translate the many data sources into English and are much more likely to be read.
If you've checked and considered all those, then it's probably about right. Just be careful that when you move material to daughter articles what is left is a proper summary of the material. I think those things you've mentioned are at least as important as the city vs suburbs. It doesn't need much, just a little more. I know book sources are a pain to get and I don't mean to discount the work you guys have done on this, it is really much much better, but I do think they are important. - TaxmanTalk01:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pentawing had asked me for more comments, so I'm responding to that and what else I see. The fiscal mismanagement I'm referring to has been in the last 5-10 years so it may not be in any books yet. The receivorship bit almost covers it, it would just be nice for a bit more. One or two sentences or so. The only sources for that may be news articles and or government reports if there are any. And yes keeping the article from being too long while covering so much info is hard, just keep working on prioritizing. If you're looking for places to cut, the sports and transportation sections are probably the best ones to work on. One thing I see is the economy section focuses too much on environmental issues almost stating that as the reason for the auto industry's decline. There's not much evidence Americans cared much about fuel economy until very recently and the big three's market shares have been dropping for decades. GM's used to be 50% and it's less than 22% now I think. It's probably they just can't get their costs down as fast and make less profit on many vehicles. So a lot of (but not all) the part focusing on their fuel economy etc, could be excised to shorten that section and be replaced with a couple sentences on market share/costs. Last, the IPA pronunciation seems off. I can't see where an open-mid back rounded vowel is in there, but then again, I'm not a linguist. The language ref desk would be a good place to ask. Also instead of /ɪ/ many people pronounce the first vowel as /i/ or /i:/. Think Deeeetroit basketball, but less stressed. :). - TaxmanTalk01:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some revisions per your suggestions. In terms of the pronounciation, I don't hear the strong E in casual conversations. It's only when people are emphasising the name that you get the long "Deee," As in "I'm going to Dee-troit!" Midwesterners often omit or soften a lot of vowels (such as "T'rono," that big city in Can-da), so this is in line with what's expected. Jtmichcock23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just today came out of an extremely rare screening of this film in its entirety and would like to work on it as much as possible immediately, while my memory (and access to external sources) is still very fresh! (It's 12+ hours long, btw...) Would love to see this really polished up nicely for a possible FA nom. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the "Plot and themes" section is too long, and should be broken up into a few separate paragraphs (doing more wiki-linking wouldn't hurt either!).
The article should have inline citations (FA criteria 2(c)), generally done in the form of WP:FOOTNOTEs.
More can be added to increase the comprehensiveness of this article, including reactions to the film, budget, etc. (examples of other film FAs can be found at WP:FA#Media)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to archive this PR at the moment. Unfortunately my outside work is building up and I feel that I am unable at the moment to give the article the attention it would need to be properly vetted for a successful peer review. Please accept my apologies and rest assured that I will both address the comments already given and re-list this for a proper review when time permits. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article tries to bring together disparate bits of information about the people, places, buildings, geology etc. of the Chew Valley (just south of Bristol, England). I'm not sure that I've got the general structure right or the content of some of the sections (I'd also like to illustrate it with a map & some more pictures - but I'd value your comments. If you fancied commenting on any of the listed village articles that would also be great but I shall probably have to do them individually later. Rod20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request on the PR talk page. The article is good and appears well researched. A few issues: 1) Too list heavy. That will be a very consistent objection if you take this to FAC. Move the lists out to daughter subarticles and/or replace them with prose about the ones that are important enough to cover. Keep in mind prioritizing, you should only cover material that is important enough to the subject and the space for each topic should be relative to it's importance. Check out what topics other FA's on geographic entities have for some guidance, though they may not be perfect either. 2) Too many short paragraphs break up the flow of the prose. They should either be merged with related material, expanded to a full idea worthy of a paragraph of it's own, or removed. 3) At least one of the images doesn't have copyright/license information. Make sure all of those are under free licenses or have proper fair use rationale. Some of the other images would seem much more appropriate for the lead than the satelite image. 4) Not enough about economic activity and demographics/population, especially relative to the amount of material on sport and leisure. That should be enough to get you going. If you would like another review let me know and I'll see if there's anything more that needs to be done before you have a FA on your hands. The writing seems quite good, though I didn't pick apart the grammar as some of the rest is higher priority and will change the text. - TaxmanTalk17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why there are "Grade II* listed" and "Grade II listed" sections; they probably should be merged, as the former is simply a list and the latter is just a short paragraph. "The name Chew" should probably be renamed etymology. "People" is rather short; the famous people could probably be moved down to be similar to a "See also" section, while the section itself could be converted to an Industry section. There is only one image without a license, and that would be Image:Smriver chew.JPG; for some reason the uploading information doesn't show up, but since there are already so many images in this article, that one isn't particularily needed. Thanks, AndyZt19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your comments - I've revamped the page taking on board the poiints you've made (removing or reducing lists, combining paragraphs & the image licensing) There isn't much to say about economic activity - it's largely rural & commuter vilages. If you (or anyone else) had further comments I would appreciate them. Rod08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All very good changes, still needs the rest though. The famous people list still needs to go and be replaced by sourced text about them, there still needs to be economics/demographics/population information, even if it is fully rurul, there's still economic activity. What % is farming, commuting elsewhere, etc. And listed buildings is a concept not known to everyone so it could use a bit of added context even though we have an article on it. - TaxmanTalk13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've had a further go at demographics etc & put the famous residents as narrative in that section - also done a bit on listed buildings. Rod18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks really good now. The only thing I can see left is the demographics never gives a number of people living in the area, nor the number of towns/villages. If that information is available it should be included. Also I didn't get a chance to survey the other FA's on geographic entities. Before FAC you should to see if there are any additional important missing topics. Other than that, great work. - TaxmanTalk19:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all comments- I've now added in some more population details & having looked at some geographic FAs have added in Natural History, climate & an info box. Further comments still appreciated. Rod10:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. Looks ready for FAC to me. They may come up with a few more things, but you seem well suited to handling them. When you're ready, delist it here and list it there. - TaxmanTalk13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second Peer Review: Since the last PR four months ago this article has gone through numerous changes. All suggestions from that PR have been made myself and other articles. In addition I have made many other other changes to the article to make it closer to a FA article. I have added more references as well as removing unessasary fair-use images and adding fair-use rationale for those that remain. I have also made changes to the order of the sections for better flow and copyeditted the parts of the article than need it. More suggestions on how to improve this article in order to work it up to FA suggest are appricated. SorryGuy00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see a lot of problems with the article, but I'm going to make just my more broad critical comments right now.
{{Infobox Book}} should be used for a summary of information at the beginning of the article.
I would disagree with this. That infobox would make sense for use with each of the books themshelves however the job of this article is to cover the whole topic, not just the books. That includes the movies, plays, video games, and CCGS. This is for articles only about books from my point of view. SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is insufficient and covers the wrong information; it briefly covers the book itself, then discusses the movie adaptations in greater detail than the book. Much of the lead is seems to be a "See Also" section, directing the reader to numerous other related articles rather than summarising the book.
I would reference you to the above. The lead maybe needs one more book sentence but this is not an article just for the books but the whole topic. When working on the synopis I found an easy way to expand the opening. It still needs a few changes and adjustments but it now covers the books much better. Comments would be nice.SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The One Ring is an important plot point, but it does not illustrate the book itself very well. A scanned image of a book would fit much better at the top of the article.
Much of the "Synopsis" covers events from The Silmarillion, The Akallabeth and other works; very little actually summarises the book itself. Previous events can be mentioned, but a summary of the plot of The Lord of the Rings, the book at hand, should be far longer. Also, don't be afraid to "give away the ending" by summarising; that's what the spoiler tags are for.
Agreed. It seems that the earlier editors of the article agreed to divide it up but it is indeed time to combine them once more. I found what I think is a much better division method. Let me know what you think. SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Books and volumes" covers in great detail the writing of the books; this is interesting from a Tolkienite perspective, but would be extremely boring to someone unfamiliar with the subject. It should be included, but reduced in size and moved much farther down the article.
The opening section of "The Books" deals broadly with many subjects but covers some in too much detail (such as the books not being allegory) while relegating important aspects such as the influence of Saxon mythology to single sentences. (Christian themes are also heavily overplayed in this section, at least when compared to other influences on Tolkien.)
"The Verse of the One Ring" probably shouldn't be in this article but in a sub-article. It also may be a copyright violation to reproduce the poem in its entirety.
"Praise" is far shorter than "Criticism" despite the book being widely acclaimed and rarely criticised. The section lengths give the impression that the book is unpopular.
The section on "early efforts" is just fine. However, there's far too much on the trilogy. It makes it seem like the live-action film trilogy was the most important adaptation of the book. (Ibaranoff2420:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"Lord of the Rings Derivates" is a bit POV, and would be better titled as "Influence on the Fantasy Genre". It should also be longer, as The Lord of the Rings is the defining moment in all of fantasy literature.
Referencing is extremely incomplete with entire sections unreferenced.
Some of the sections have nothing to reference though. Summaries and the like can only reference the books themshelves. SorryGuy02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done with my quick critique. I'll try to work on some of this when I get a chance (which won't be until Tuesday), but I don't think more in-depth critiquing can occur until the article imprroves significantly. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 23 April2006 @ 01:18 UTC
Agreed with Fritz Saalfeld; being a member of WikiProject Middle-earth, I did go ahead and fixed the capitalisations in headings. Just from quick skimming: with the subheadings in the Adaptations section, I suggest removing 'The Lord of the Rings on...' as stated by MoS here: "Avoid repeating the article title in headings; use 'Voyage' instead of 'Voyage of the Mayflower' in an article titled 'Mayflower'.". Just simply put 'Film', 'Music', etc. As for the books section, perhaps you should rename 'The Books' section simply 'Books' or 'Series'. Also by MoS, I feel like there is an overuse of subheadings. Subheadings are used when there is an overflow of information that splits into different subtopics, but perhaps to limit the number of subheadings, you should cut down on some of the information. On the other hand, it looks great despite its problems. :) (I'll look more closer at the article later, so expect a more indepth constructive critcism to follow up). —Mirlen17:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the Adaptations to reflect the MoS. I have also found the following ways to reduce the number of sub-headings:
Removed the One Ring verse due to copyright issues and the fact that it already has its own article. I added the link to that article in See Also
Changed Art so that it did not have an empty heading with a sentence more of prose.
With a little work Publication and Publication history can also be merged.
Once more with a little work Praise and Criticism can be merged together under a new heading Critical response. If I were to make these changes do you feel that I would not need to remove information from the article?
I am also working on finding someone to improve the Sysnopis part as it has been a while since I have read the books. SorryGuy20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removing Image:Tolkien ring.jpg. Article would look much cleaner without it. Its also not directly related to the article but is only part of the plot in the books. This article is about the books. If you guys want to keep it then I would suggest moving it atleast to "Synopsis". – Tutmøsis(Talk)23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also did a couple of other tweaks in the first two sections (including the intro). But there is overload of wikilinking in the rest of the sections, especially the book titles. Also, regular words like 'fairy tales' do not need to be wikilinked. Also, I feel like the adaptations section is rather long, since the focus of the article is on the books, not the adaptations. —Mirlen13:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article looks much better than it did when I first looked at it. I still have a few major gripes and some minor ones.
Much of the beginning of the "The Books" section consist of randomly assorted trivia, most about influences on the writing (which should be summarised and put in their own section), but in a rather rambling and uncohesive pattern. It is currently by far the worst section of the article.
I still have an objection to "Criticism" being longer than "Praise" as the Lord of the Rings is widely praised and rarely criticised, yet the relative section lengths make it seem the other way around. Praise should be made longer and/or Criticism better summarised. (Most of the criticisms are quite similar and could be merged together.)
Some sections, notably "Games", remain largely unsourced. If this article is to become featured, sources must be found and assertions about fans' opinions verified.
Art is hopelessly stubby. I've tagged it with {{expandsection}}
Influences on the fantasy genre is also very short and lacking in citations. As The Lord of the Rings was the defining moment in the fantasy genre, certainly more can be said about its influence.
Inline links should be converted to footnotes.
That's it, I think. Probably also needs a thorough copyedit, but that can come after the article is otherwise high quality. A few images (maybe a screenshot from the movies, one from one of the games, etc.) wouldn't go amiss, either. —Cuiviénen(talk•contribs), Saturday, 13 May2006 @ 01:38 UTC
I'd like to see this a featured article. If I could have some pointers on its shortcomings; that'd be great. I think all the information is there, and it just needs to be assembled in the most user-friendly way. -Litefantastic23:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure:[reply]
No references.
Various images used with no/incorrect licencing information.
All kinds of problems with the factual accuracy of the article: "Inuyasha is a popular shōnen manga and anime series... Inuyasha is a shōjo action adventure romantic comedy"... .... (hint, first sentence was right).
No meaningful critical commentary, western general-purpose-anime sites don't count.
Far too much of the article is silly meaningless stuff like the "Title dispute" section, that's maybe relevant to some really anal western fans, but not an encyclopedia article. 'Popularity' refers only to US tv stations.
Nothing really about the style of the manga, or the anime, or about the process of creation, Takahashi, Sunrise, or any of its staff.
I nominated this article as binaries are of the highly ,most blah blah blah
importance in astrophysics and some related articles are already at FA status. I already tried to improve it by adding references, and after this review I plan to nominate it as featured article. Nick Mks18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a decent page but I think it could be made a little better. Some comments:
I have to disagree with the statement "it would be impossible to compute the mass of any star". There is the gravitational microlensing technique, for example.
The binary star examples section could be readily expanded into brief statements that describe the systems and explains why they are interesting examples. Also there are multi-star examples in the list; is that appropriate? Maybe the reason they are included could be explained?
I'd like to see Beta Lyrae included in the examples, as it is one of the most studied star systems in astronomy.
I'd like to see a discussion of widely-separated binaries and the likelihood that they will become non-gravitationally bound as they move through the galaxy.
You could potentially also include a discussion of runaway star as it applies to a binary star system.
Just now read this article and found it amazingly NPOV for such a controversial subject. I think the editors have been admirable in presenting a fair, well detailed, well sourced picture of Saddam, without special pleading. I find current objections to the article in the Talk page to be without merit. It has been almost two years since Saddam Hussein was nominated and failed as a Featured article. I think the time has come to recognize the good work of the editors and renominate, bur wanted to vet it with Peer Review beforehand. — J M Rice10:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be shortened- 75kb is really a lot of bloat. I don't think you'll have any success getting it featured while the trial is still a current event (that section needs to be rewritten too btw). Borisblue14:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of what the norm is for biographies, but I'm worried about referencing. There isn't even a section called references. References (preferably in-line) are especially important with controversial topics. Andjam11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article grew very significantly during the three months or so of the contest and has been pretty stable since. As it was stitched together over time and changed frequently, a review would help check how it works as a whole article. Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some initial comments.
The opening needs to take an overall view of the whole leadership election process. At the moment it starts by naming the winner and giving his winning margin, then leaps back two months to give the reason it was called. This flows very badly and doesn't give much context. A better way would be like this "The Liberal Democrats leadership election of 2006 saw Menzies Campbell elected to follow Charles Kennedy as Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the centrist British political party. Kennedy was forced to resign (etc.) There were four candidates (etc). The eventual winning margin was (etc.)".
Likewise the article's sections are out of sequence with the vote results given first, then the candidates and their supporters, the withdrawn candidates, the rules, then the opinion polls, and finally a narrative of the campaign. The circumstances in which Charles Kennedy was forced to resign, which happened first in the chronology, are the last section. I think a more chronological order would be better.
Parts of the article are written as though the election is still ongoing: the candidates' list and their supporters, for instance.
The abbreviation 'Ming Campbell' is used a few times. It needs to be either explained, or preferably, ditched and Menzies Campbell used throughout. David | Talk20:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitting the Sparks article as it has been very stable for a long time and requires fresh eyes for its development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos (talk • contribs) 09:27, October 21, 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
To do (based on comments below - please correct/add to)
Cleanup external links
Update infobox
Use listen box for samples
Complete/expand discography
Expand album pages
Fair use justifications/free use images, imporve image descriptions
Here are some suggestions for ya, nice work so far.
Actually, per Wikipedia:Music samples, samples should typically be in listen-boxes next to the paragraphs that mention them.
One thing I noticed about the language was that you use the phrase "[year] saw the release of..." a bunch of times in the article. You should probably switch up the sentence structure a little bit.
If you wanna get this to an FA, you're going to need to probably have some better fair use justifications or get some free-use pics.
The first several sentences of the style section should probably have some inlines somewhere, as the article makes some pretty specific claims/comparisons.
I don't know how much more info is available on this band, but it seems like there could be more detail. Did they have recurring themes in their music? Any particular legacy/influence on other bands?
Nice article, enjoyed reading it. Just a few suggestions:
The lead should ideally comprise 3 paragraphs. Maybe the current lead could be split in two at the 'Despite the many genres' section, followed by a para on the current revival. Also Sparks have been hugely influential, and it'd be worthwhile in mentioning a few specific bands in the 2nd paragraph.
Words such as 'lush' and 'dramatically' could be seen as POV.
Add more descriptive captions to the images.
Change the references style to "div class="references-small" (looks tidy). Also consider using a standard <ref name="X">{{cite web | author= X| year= X | title="X" | work=X| url=X | accessdate= October 21 | accessyear=2006}}</ref> format for all refs.
Perhalps the "style" section should come after "History". This is no big deal, and there's no 'rule' as such, its just more usual.
Both Ron and Russell are quite witty in interviews, try incorporating quotes into article, where appropriate.
Just a comment: If your going for FA, and you should, the preference for sound files seems to be towards the 'Sound sample box' format. That said inline is sometimes used as well.
Disog. section is disproportionally large compared to rest of article. If you want to expand the History section, maybe subscribe to Questia or Rocks back pages for a month and see what you can dig out.
In the lead, what kind of 1960s music does "60s homage" refer to? I've also added links to the other genres you mention — you might want to check if I've interpreted them all correctly. Also, "uniquely crafted artistic pop songs" could mean a lot of different things, in my experience; the description of lyrics and arrangements work better to convey what you might be describing, but I think this part could be more descriptive.
Claiming uniqueness twice in the opening seems a bit overreaching, no matter who you're talking about.
The "Style" section seems to duplicate a bit from the "History" section (sometimes verbatim, eg. "a major influence on artists such as Depeche Mode, New Order and The Pet Shop Boys"). Also, it introduces some aspects of their history in vague details before the history section discusses them more specifically; maybe you could put it after the history section, and thereby be able to refer back to details of their history more concisely.
The page needs plenty of in-line citations to back up the various facts. (Particularly if you could give sources for the legends.) Otherwise the reader has no idea how much is true, or pure hoax.
Please fix the multiple errors in the sentence: "It should be noted, that another peoples, that live arround Kazan, such as Chuvashes and Mari also have legends, related to Kazan's foundation, but no one refers to Kazan dragon."
"After 16th century Russians loaned this legend from Tatars." Did you mean "acquired" this legend?
"Sceptics": Which skeptics are they? Is there a reference?
article is about an early-1990s british electronica band. aim is to make this article featured quality. please give any pointers about what can be done to achieve that, and list anything at all that could prevent it becoming a featured article. Zzzzz22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list in the second paragraph beginning They also gained notoriety for... is very long. Try making two or more sentences out of it by changing it into direct prose.
I'm not sure about your use of semi-colons. They seem to be used far too liberally and for what I believe are the wrong reasons, such as, as "tastefully understated"[2]; a "touching if idiosyncratic biographical statement".
Agree that they were used too often and sometimes inappropriately. I've removed some, but left those which serve to highlight the relationship between what would otherwise be two sentences. Does this seem better? --Vinoir13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably my doing. I would say that in most cases I was conjoining statements which could stand alone as two sentences, or where merging reviews from two publications into one overview. I trust Vinoir to have fixed it as I don't feel well enough to trawl through diffs today :) --kingboyk13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to find citations for the parts where there are {{fact}} tags, or justify their removal before submitting to WP:FAC.
I think without exception any {{fact}} tags were added by me (one of the principle authors), either to statements I added from memory (for which I know there is a source but I hadn't located it at the time), or to rather dubious material which was in the article when I first arrived. We'll ensure that all such occurences are replaced with a citation, removed, or left without {{fact}} in any instance where the attached statement is not controversial. (OK, let's see: "Recalling the moment in a radio interview" - that was me, I don't have a transcript to hand, however he said much the same on numerous occasions, so we can fix that; "banned from the airwaves of BBC Radio 1", that's your's Vinoir but I tagged it (do you have a source?); "leading some people to have compared Drummond and Cauty's incarnations to The Residents", I think that's a very old line, it might have to go; I do believe all others have now been dealt with). --kingboyk13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "banned from the airwaves of BBC Radio 1" statement because I was going by Drummond's word for that, and I have not found a source to back him up, from the BBC or elsewhere. --Vinoir03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's one more: "When the play moved to London it was seen by a young Jimmy Cauty". Again, I tagged this. I don't know if we need a citation specifically for that assertion, but some quotations from Cauty and Drummond about Illuminatus, and perhaps a music press or broadsheet article about their appropriation of Illuminatus symbology (is that a word? :)), would be nice. The "When the play moved to London it was seen by a young Jimmy Cauty" thing is something of a KLF legend but is that good enough? Possibly not. --kingboyk04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that article User:Drstuey most probably inserted it into our article too, as he was an early contributor to it. I knew of him already because is a member of the KLF mailing list; as far as I know he's not a published author or an acknowledged expert in the field (any more than - say - I am; not that I doubt he knows what he's talking about!). Thinking about it, though, it might be mentioned in Peter Robinson's "Justified & Ancient History". Robinson went on to work as a music journalist for one of the weeklies, so we could possibly get away with using him. I'd still prefer some hard evidence or a direct quote, however. --kingboyk10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to doing that, none at all as it's not an important link. However, why should that be necessary? It's not a KLF-related article (so not one we have any immediate intention of creating, I think), and redlinks used in moderation do have some value. --kingboyk13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. It's like the "Bagpuss" shop window: if anyone passing sees something that they'd like to partake in, then they can, and we might gain a new Wikipedian. --Vinoir03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what do the FAC rules say? I know all our links should be blue for FAC, but I don't know about links that couldn't reasonably be expected to be part of our project (the Oberheim OB-8 is a similar red link). --kingboyk04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is no rule.... redlinks are ok, but turning them into stub articles will help anon users as they can't create articles. Zzzzz10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, of course. Good rationale, I shall see what I can do about the Oberheim OB-8 and Sound on Sound then. --Vinoir22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Well there ya go, learn something new every day. Cue the cliched but genuine "I hadn't thought of that!" :) --kingboyk00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I'd like to see this article featured. The first peer review didn't get a lot of turnout, but the article has improved substantially since then. For such an important and controversial historial figure, the more eyes the better. If you know something about Pius, great; if not, you can still bring a pair of neutral eyes to the article. All comments would be much appreciated.
Also, a lot of non-english wikis have articles about him and if someone who could speak those languages could check for discrepancies or omissions that would be much appreciated as well. The foreign language articles also seem to have more rigorous copyright defenses of their images. savidan(talk)(e@)12:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd make a few improvements:
extend the early life section
in Election and Coronation get rid of the 1 sentance paragraph
why did he consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
the photo with the bird is nce, but can a better spot be found for it?
the address to the the Pontifical Academy of Sciences isnt an encylical.
what was the state of Japan with respect to WWII in 1942. Can you put the establishing of ties in a little more context?
when bombs fell on Rome, he gathered up all the money he could find in the vatican and went out into the crowds of people to distribute it. ive seen video of it, but theres nothing on it here.
a rabbi recently wrote a book in respoce to "hitlers pope" defending pius, i believe. theres no mention of it here.
This article failed an admittedly premature FAC. User:Fjorn, myself, and others have worked hard to expand it since then. The purpose of this peer review is to get ideas and imput on how to get the article over the last hurdles needed to become featured. In particular, please look over the play and scoring sections, as they seem a bit clunky right now. I'm also not sure if some of the images are properly tagged. Anything else is, of course, also very welcome. Thank you! --Danaman503:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to rid the article of red links by removing the links or creating stubs (at least) for the articles.
Thank you for your comment. I have removed the red links for now. I suspect that some of them may exist and were linked incorrectly, or should be created as stubs. As they are discovered or created, I will re-add them. --Danaman506:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: Generally, do not put links in the bolded article title (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). I realize the word bowling isn't used again in the first paragraph, so maybe you can slightly modify the beginning of the second to read: "Since being brought to the United States from Europe, bowling has...", which I think actually sounds better because according to your history it was bowling in general that was brought from Europe, not 10-pin specifically. --NormanEinstein18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're quick. Here's a few other things to think about. ;-) I'd kill the Trivia section and merge the salient info into the appropriate sections in the main body of the article. For instance, the part about the popularity of bowling could be listed in the most recent History section. The See also section is pretty huge with that list of famous bowlers. You might consider spinning that off into a "List of famous Ten-pin bowlers", then that list can get as big as needed. If there are one or two really important people that helped develop the game keep them listed here. I'd also remove bowling ball, bowling pin, and pinsetter from the See alsos because they should already be wikilinked in the body. (Bowling ball and bowling pin actually aren't wikilinked anywhere, so maybe link the first occurrence of them in the opening paragraph.) Personally, I'm not a fan of lists of quotes in articles and I think they should be integrated into the text or not used at all. Those quotes seem to be more for flavour than anything else, so maybe remove them (or move to the talk page for safe keeping if you decide to make a list of quotes article ;-) --NormanEinstein21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I have wikilinked bowling ball and bowling pin in the lead as you mentioned. The other changes are more major, and I do not feel comfortable doing them unilaterally, especially since the quotes section was just recently added. I have brought them up on the talk page, however, and most if not all should be implemented shortly. --Danaman503:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of good information here. I have made a number of stylistic changes, but I do think the article needs a lot of rewriting: there is much awkward language; paragraphs that list series of facts without any obvious connection between them; use of "this" and "it" when specificity is required; historical tidbits without providing context, etc. To illustrate, analyzing the text under the first section heading, ==Origins==:
First ¶: The "first written record"—what record? The following two sentences have no segue, and list facts without context; "In Germany the game of Kegal (Kegelspiel) expanded." It's a non sequitur. What is Kegal? is it a bowling-like game? We are eventually told at the end of the paragraph that it is a nine pin game, but it's too late, and its introduction is not connected at all to the preceding sentence. The next stand alone paragraph tells us—still under the Origins section mind you—that kegal is now a major modern sporting company along with Brunswick and AMC. We just got abruptly uprooted from history of the sport from hundreds of years ago to a present day parenthetical aside about modern sports distributors set off in its own paragraph. This is followed in the next paragraph by the introduction of the sport to America during colonial times. The shift is incongruous. The next paragraph's first sentence in full is: "Ninepin bowling was introduced to America from Europe during the colonial era, similar to the game of skittles." Similar to what in the game of Skittles? the way it was introduced via Europe to the US? Or is bowling similar to Skittles? What is trying to be said? --Fuhghettaboutit05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has two items discussed in the Talk page that should be clarified. One problem is the suggestion of procedure for the ailment without any source to back that up. The other problem is that there is some confusion over a time frame for when a medical practitioner should be consulted. :: Colin Keigher01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Previous request archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/Megatokyo/archive1[reply]
I feel that the criticisms and suggestion from the previous peer review and the FA nom have been adressed and dealt with and this article will soon be ready to be go up for featured article status. I am hoping that this will act as a good step to get some suggestions on how the article can be improved and made better so that it will meet the quality requirements for a featured article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very odd article, I'll give it that. I'm not entirely convinced it's FA material just yet, despite (in spite of?) working on the article on and off at times. Some comments:
The lead should actually talk about, y'know, the comic. Currently it's simply a lot of short, factual statements that look like they're pulled right from the infobox they're next to. The only statement about the comic in the lead is that it uses l33t speak; is that really the kind of comic Megatokyo is? It uses l33t speak?
I would not be opposed to merging the characters and plot together into one section; the characters section drew fire in FAC last time, and it's definitely not much improved since. Bulleted lists definitely won't earn you points in FAC, since it's not "brilliant prose".
I'm gonna sound really stupid, but the plot actually needs some fleshing out: it says next to nothing about the direction the comic took after Caston left, merely that it has "changed somewhat". Currently the only real plotline given its own paragraph is the "Piro and Largo need jobs" plot, which is resolved (relatively) early on as other plots move on. The rest of the section mainly talks about the setting at large.
I gave Image:Megatokyo - 0619.png some fair use rationale. I don't know if the manga covers also need it, but it couldn't hurt.
Again, there is more MT after Caston leaves, but the History section doesn't go past it. Use the space to say some things about how Piro sees the comic; in particular, I believe on several occassions he's said he sees the website as a working journal of sorts for the book versions. Also go over how the comic has been funded over the years (has it always been merch?)
Not sure if the forums deserve their own section or not. One of my rules of thumb for pop culture is "The fandom doesn't matter", particularly since it's not exactly the most citable thing in the world.
Merge the MegaGear section into the History. It's too short by itself and can't be expanded much.
Was going to say "see my objection from FAC", but I note there's actually some discussion of the style of the comic now. However the content is still pretty patchy, and there's no real cross references still. The NYT quote is pretty cute though. The lead needs work, as does the format and layout of the artilce, which is really... odd at the moment. Like, why is 'History' at the bottom? Also, pet peeve:
"It is written and drawn in a manga-influenced style." - this just isn't helpful, either needs another way of phrasing what's trying to be said, or you need to narrow down what 'manga' is meant to be, or you're just saying "this comic is drawn in a comic-influenced style".
"the comic changed into a manga-styled free-form layout" - what's this even meant to mean?
Are there any featured webcomic articles atm? Dunno if there's anything that could serve as a useful template for improvement. --zippedmartin09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese names need to follow WP:MOS-JA and should be written in western order. i.e. Yuki Sonoda (園田由紀) not Sonoda Yuki (園田由紀). You can always use template:nihongo for quick formatting i.e. {{nihongo|Yuki Sonoda|園田由紀|Sonoda Yuki}} → Yuki Sonoda (園田由紀, Sonoda Yuki). --Kunzite19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are four{{citation needed}} templates. These statements needs sourcing, or removal.
Notes should not be preceded by space, and should be placed after punctuation, per WP:FN style.
Multiple links to the same article should be reduced.
Some characters in the main characters section are gone into depth way beyond summary style - I'd recommend keeping it to a 2 paragraph limit on each one
"Chapters" needs some more prose.... maybe you could explain what the chapters are
Ok, I fixed that. Anything else?? Mercenary2k April 18, 2006 9:44 PM
I made some wikilinks, most of which came out blue. 2 citation needed templates were added. One major grammatical fault fixed. The article reads comprehensive. However, some more references would perhaps be better. I shall try to put some citation needed templates if I point out some potential areas. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is often said that any article that merits Wikipedia's standard for inclusion can be turned into a featured article. It is my intent to test this theory with this particular article, which is an overview of the administrative divisions structure of the Russian Republic of Adygea. Technically, the article meets most of the points outlined in WP:PERFECT (but it would be a great learning experience for me to be proved wrong), and, as such, it can theoretically become a featured article one day. Some of the drawbacks that I know about and am yet to fix is the abundance of red links and lack of English-language references, but other than that I would welcome any suggestions as to how this article can be further improved, what else is missing, what is redundant, and what it would take for this article to become featured.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not the kind of peer review I was hoping for. First, there is an intro. Second, I already mentioned the red links in the list. If you have nothing to add, please don't.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I offended you, but what I meant by long list was you needed to expand it, put it into paragraph form. --Osbus23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't at all offended; it's just that your comment didn't sound constructive. As for the paragraph form, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you could illustrate your suggestion with an example, that'd be much appreciated. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I don't know anything about this topic, I can't give an example. But you can expand on the characteristics of each division, that would be interesting. --Osbus20:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, by "division" do you mean the terminology (districts, urban-type settlements, khutors, etc.) or the districts from the list (Koshekhablsky, Teuchezhsky, etc.)? I could write more about the former, but the latter will eventually have their own articles.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the districts from the list. Without some expansion, well, it would be one big list! (but a good, comprehensive one). --Osbus00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any specific information you were hoping to find in the intro but were not able to? I've been working on this article for quite a while, so it's very easy for me to overlook something important, seeing it as self-evident. Would you have any specific suggestions? As for the division itself, we have a whole article about it, and it is linked to. Is that insufficient? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, though just a small one - IMHO red links are not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the article does not integrally rely on their content and they point to correctly worded targets, they can even be extremely helpful (e.g. links to raions). However, I perceive a red link like microdistrict as a much greater problem - it tells me that the article builds upon a concept that is unexplained. --Nikai23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in the process of collecting information for the article about the microdistrict concept; I can write a stub any day. Microdistrict is no longer a red link. Is there anything else of that nature that caught your eye?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 02:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - I'd just like to say that I see the primary usefulness of an article on administrative divisions in "drawing a grid" across a part of a country. Such a grid enables to create (or, even better, spot already created) articles on smaller entities. The article already does that, as far as I can see. --Nikai08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is too long; information found in the lead should be discussed later on in the article. Putting it on WP:FAC might be a stretch here- perhaps try featured lists? The article as of now contains near no prose, but WP:WIAFA suggests that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. Perhaps some more history could be included, more information like passed by the State Council—Khase on April 26, 2000 with subsequent amendments. AndyZt00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the rare occasion when I write an article :), I strive it to be more than a list. One of the reasons of this peer review is to help me find venues to make the article more of an actual article rather than a mindless list. As for the history, I avoided including it on purpose, because:
the article is supposed to tell the reader about the current state of affairs (I update it every time there is a change);
history of administrative divisions of Russia from the 18th century to present will be covered elsewhere. Once that's accomplished, it'll probably benefit this article to provide an overview and backlinks.
I also realize that the prose is far from brilliant (it's too dry, for one thing), but I really am not sure how to cover it in such a way as to make it sound compelling. Any ideas?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article will be durable. Several days ago, President of Adygeia was forced to resign, after it has become clear that the Kremlin wants the Republic to be absorbed into the Krasnodar Krai over next few years. --Ghirla-трёп-08:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Once cleaned up and improved this article would probably indeed fit better with other similar lists. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what can/should be improved to bring this list to a featured status? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apart from a map and a brief historical section (again mentioned above) I think the districts could possibly be put into a table format along relavant data (for example it's capital city, population numbers etc). CheekyMonkey13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With this approach, once the articles about the districts are created, there will be a duplication of information (i.e., stats will be mentioned once in the article about the district, and once—in this overview). The main problems is the updates—from my experience people tend to update the first article on the subject they can find, without looking around to see if there are any summaries/overviews. I am not against formatting the list as a table in general, but would not want it to contain too much redundant information.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most important theatres in London since the Restoration period. Looking for areas of improvement before FAC-ing. I'm sure I must have missed plenty of crucial points in the 350 years of history I've tried to cover. I know the lead's short, and ideas about what else should be in there would be great. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, although I'm not a regular on FAC so I've probably missed stuff that they will pick up upon. One thing though is the red link to patent theatres in the intro. Might be an idea to create a stub as its not obvious what they are until the middle of the article. RicDod10:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks lovely! I'll take a good look later. But it seems to me that you run into the Same Knife problem a bit. Owner repairs the knife by putting a new haft on it; next owner repairs it again, by putting a new blade on it. Is it in any sense still the same knife? The physical playhouse is destroyed by fire and rebuilt from the ground up a number of times; the enterprise or "company" starts over from scratch a number of times. So in what sense is this the same theatre? The name? The street? Indeed, what is "*a* theatre"? I'm not putting this forward as an objection to having an article about the Theatre Royal, you understand. I think it's great that we now have one. More as something that I would look for having explicated/defined up front. Perhaps indeed in the lead section, where you say the Theatre Royal "is a theatre" but then go on to speak of the present theatre being the last in a line of different theatres that "opened in 1663 (burned down in 1672), 1674 (demolished in 1791) and 1794 (burned down in 1809)". How many knives are there? (Three?) Bishonen | talk11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Congrats on a truely marvelous article! Your work has certainly paid off and you included the ghosts! I made a few minor corrections here and there. The only thing that I see missing is about how the theatre acquired it's name as the Theatre Royal. The first paragraph under the First theatre section states it was called the Theatre in Bridges Street but then the final sentence refers to it as the Theatre Royal. I will check the Oxford Companion to the Theatre as I think it has an explanation. I'll do it once I get home from work. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ganymead! That's a good point about the naming; I think in point of fact the "official" name of the place was largly undefined in the early days, but maybe I'm incorrect about that. I saw your edits, they were good, especially fixing the Joseph Grimaldi link... as for "Humerous", I blame that blackguard Pepys for letting me down with his poor spelling ability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm home and i've consulted Oxford. I swear it explained the name, but I can't find it. It may be in the Cambridge Guide to Theatre which I will take a look at during my rehearsal in a few minutes. After reading the entry in Oxford, I've noticed a few details and things that you may consider expanding on or including. Once I get back from rehearsal, I'll note those on the articles talk page for you to consider including. One point I did notice was that Oxford spells the street "Brydges", I know spelling was a bit dodgey (sp?) in that era, but do all of your sources use "Bridges"? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?21:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the spelling at the time was all over the place, but my modern sources seem to agree on using "Bridges". (Apparently the Oxford Companion has its own idea about it, I hadn't looked there.) Bishonen | talk22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm back from rehearsal. I printed out the article and read it while waiting (a long time) to go onstage. After re-reading it, it's still a marvelous article, but I think it's missing a few things. The article really seems to concentrate on the building and it's managers with some (but still too little, IMHO) discussion of performances. Certainly, the number of plays that premiered there (including Bish's...I mean, Vanbrugh's The Relapse) is impressive and the number of famous actors treading its boards is outstanding. Comparing your article with the lengthy article in the Oxford Companion, probably 1 quarter of the Oxford article discusses performances while I would say your article comprises less. In addition, there are a number of interesting details that Oxford points out that I think could fatten the article up a bit. I'll pull out those facts and leave them on the article's talk page this evening. Oh, and one other thing, I think when this goes to FAC, you'll be asked to expand the intro. Ok, off to the article talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very good ideas. One reason I've skimped on the players and performances is that I've felt a little unable to determine which actors and plays were the notable ones deserving of mention and which would just look like strange trivia. Certainly my discussion of plays is completely imbalanced toward ones with rushing water or galloping horses right now (what!? No monkeys?!). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coupla minor image points: if you'd care for more info about the famous Hogarth portrait of Garrick as Richard III (Cibber's "adapted" Richard), there is some at the smaller version Image:Garrick as RichardIII.1743.jpg. Here's a little rather nice commentary on the painting on the Walker Gallery site. And can I interest you in an ugly pic of the first performance at the 1674 theatre? It's undynamic and dull, but still, I suppose it's somewhat hisorically, even though not hysterically, interesting. (A French opera, briefly accounted for in the "Obliged to the French" subsection in Restoration spectacular). Bishonen | talk18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
About players and performances: no galloping horses or dancing real live monkeys, but would you like me to add a few lines on the plays of the 1660s and 70s at Drury Lane, before the 1682 merger? It's just 20 years out of 350, I know, but those 20 years saw more important new plays than did, say, 1700—1850. Drury Lane was the home of talk drama, in counterpoint to the Duke's Company's emphasis on spectacle, scenery, "opera", and machines. As I point out in Restoration spec, Davenant and Betterton of the Duke's Company were hugely more successful than the King's Company at Drury Lane, which was riven by conflict between powerful actors at odds with management and with each other (Michael Mohun and Charles Hart especially). And Killigrew was always being wrong-footed by Davenant's greater initiative and energy. There were good reasons the King's ended up getting eaten by the Duke's. But what I don't mention in Rest spec, which I see as going nicely here, is the other side of the coin: the fantastic dialogue-driven Restoration comedies, now classics, that were being produced at Drury Lane. Especially the very first seasons of the 1674 theatre are miraculous, with George Etherege's The Man of Mode and William Wycherley's The Country Wife (an, ahem, Featured article) and The Plain Dealer. In plays like these, also, the strengths of the obstreperous Drury Lane actors made them co-creators of the distinctive kind of repartee — Charles Hart and Nell Gwyn are credited especially. Of course you could perfectly well do this yourself, with the help especially of articles Restoration comedy and The Country Wife (which has a potentially useful bit about some important Drury Lane actors). Most of the other stuff I've linked here is unreconstructed 1911 EB, to my shame. Bishonen | talk22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'd be delighted if you'd add such material; any imbalance it creates toward 1660-1680 should be rectified by adding more elsewhere, after all. It's clear to me that Gwynn and Hart are among the players worth mentioning here. I'll have to remember to read through The Country Wife -- I think I've missed that one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was about time I learnt my way around the WP peer review process as an author, after having been a reviewer a few times. I'd welcome comments on this article. Thanks SP-KP23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be expanded. Maybe more on cultivation techniques, etc. Oh yeah, in-line citations are always good.--Osbus20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate comments on how to improve this page's efficiency -- to make it easier to read, better layout, etc. Also, does this article need expansion or a picture? I'm new here, so I'm hoping that the myriad more experienced will lend a hand. Thank you. --Catchthedream21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is one i have edited quite a lot, and I want to put it up for a featured article, any advice. Or just tell me what you think of it. Cheers JimHxn16:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the article? All it is is a brief introduction and a set of pointless lists. This is not nearly ready for FAC. Start with overview, history and structure sections. It's an interesting event, and worthy of a decent Wikipedia article.--cj | talk07:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like you've already nominated for FAC [1], which this article is clearly not ready for. For this stub to become an article, you'll need information on:
Why did Peter Gabriel start WOMAD? Did it effect his career? Is he still proactive with WOMAD?
Was it successful? (I know it initially wasn't, hense the Six of the Best concert, which is the only time EVER that Gabriel reunited with Genesis (band) for a live concert since leaving the band in 1974.
Was WOMAD successful? Have critics discussed WOMAD, or the acts, or its influence on others?
Once this and more has been added, then you should consider fixing this up for Featured Article. But right now, more research is needed. --Ataricodfish01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are having a POV dispute going on at this page. Apparantly, someone believes this article is nothing but a left-wing shill for Olbermann, and does not focus on the downside of his career or his alleged liberal biases. Others think that the article is fine as it is. I just don't want this to be a personal attack against him, nor a fan page. We just want to see an outsider have a look and tell us what changes, if any, need to be made. Thanks. --D-Day(Wouldn'tyouliketobea peppertoo?) 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it, I notice an abundance of favorable adjectives, especially in the beginning of the first section where it discusses his job, such as the "noticed for his quick wit" thing which really seems pretty subjective and even if it could be referenced, the words used in that area seem needlessy POV. if there's something an editor wants to put in about "alleged liberal biases", then citations would probably be needed to some degree. Homestarmy15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was bias in this article, which I cleaned up to some degree(i.e. there were much more favorable adjectives). The editor in question has tried to put in favorable mention to Olbermann's opponents, such as OlbermannWatch, which we suspect is his website. But I will take yours and any other comments into question. --D-Day(Wouldn'tyouliketobea peppertoo?) 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[User:rcox1963] (i.e., Robert Cox) D-Day wrote "The editor in question has tried to put in favorable mention to Olbermann's opponents, such as OlbermannWatch, which we suspect is his website." This is a knowingly false statement and I call on D-Day to admit this and issue a retraction.
I have been quite open about being the editor of OlbermannWatch both here and in the press including a quite public debate with Jimmy Wales about how this entry demonstrates the liberal bias that I believe defines Wikipedia. D-Day knows full-well and knows that I had absoutely nothing to do with listing OlbermannWatch in this Wikipedia entry (I have previously provided a link to a PRO-Olbermann fan board where one of the posters wrote about their efforts to edit the Keith Olbermann entry to their liking and, for whatever reason, including a link to Olbermann Watch).
So there is no "we suspect is his website" becuase (a) there is no "we" just D-Day (b) no "suspect" because I have been quite open about being the owner-operator of OlbermannWatch.com. My concern with this entry has been well-documented and made quite openly.
D-Day, on the other hand, has not been so honest and open as is the case here. This is the same D-Day who put up a blog about "Olbermann Watch Watch", making all sorts of threats and derogatory personal comments about me. When I "outed" him in the Wikipedia discussion for the Keith Olbermann entry he tried to hide what he had done and who he really was by deleting the blog and disavowing what he wrote (he also then asked me to accept his apology for what he had done all the while continuing to make false statements about me; needless to say I did not accept this policy in light of his continued attacks on me in a different venue (this one).
Let me add that I have no problem with OlbermannWatch not being linked on Keith Olbermann or Countdown with Keith Olbermann entries. My objection in this regard was the use of the wiki to promote Olbermann fan sites (blogs and forums). If any site/blog is going to be listed then Olbermann Watch shoudl be listed for a very simple reason. It is by far the largest "Olbermann" independent web site on the Internet. There are pages within sites such as MSNBC.com and Wikipedia that are larger but unlike those large sites which contain just a page about Olbermann, OlbermannWatch is a fully realized web site devoted to nothing other than the subject of Keith Olbermann. That Olbermann Watch would not be listed when other sites with a tiny fraction of the readership are listed is absurd - and a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for the purpose of driving traffic to those sites. For the Anti-Olbermann Watch crowd which seems to frequent this entry, the solution is simple, do not list ANY sites other than the MSNBC.com page for Coutndown with Keith Olbermann and Keith's own blog at bloggerman. com. Otherwise, not listing Olbermann Watch while listing smaller sites is a violation of Wikipedia promotion policy.
The articles includes the info present on the main article, I now want to start developing it. Please say something about structure, lack of references, pictures, anything. I haven't found any quality similar articles, so, it is a bit difficult to compare. Thanks. Afonso Silva12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After being one of the most influential parties in the years that followed the Carnation Revolution, mainly among the working class, it became less influential after the fall of the Socialist bloc in eastern Europe. This sentence needs a reference. --Osbus20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a problem. It's just like saying "Einstein was a very influent scientist". In 1987, the PCP had about 50 mayors, now it has 32 and in 2001 had 28. The electoral results show that, in 1985 it had 15.6%, in 1987 it dropped to 12.2% and in 1991 it gathered only 8.8% and stablilized its voting around that value during the 1990s and early 2000s. Also, the Theses from the Congresses held since the early 1990s recognize that trend and, obviously, the right-wing, the Socialist Party and the remaining political enemies of the Party claim that all the time. This happened with the majority of the Western communist parties. How can I manage to support that with references? I can't remove it, the post-soviet period is very important to the PCP.
All images needing Fair Use rational were tagged, and redundant text was removed. Requesting new peer review as points from last have been fixed.123wiki12322:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice article, that "Suggested retail price by region" chart, are those the suggested prices upon release? current prices? or am I just confused because since the launch of the system there was no price drop? - Tutmosis00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Current suggested retail price, all launch prices are in the launch article, TMK there has only been one price drop, a small one in the UK. I've clarified in the chart that it's current, and added a see also. Shouldn't be very relevant now, but once price drops come it will be.123wiki12307:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have significantly edited this article and I think it is well-written, neutral, and stable. I don't know whether it's comprehensive enough, though. I welcome all thoughts on this matter. Andrea Parton23:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More information should be added about its history and structure.
Article about a semi-professional English football (soccer if you're American or pedantic :-D) club. We don't have many long articles about such clubs so it's been fairly unchartered territory and I've done things slightly differently from other football club articles. For example, information about semi-professional players is hard to come by and it would hard to write more than a stub for some of them, so I've merged the player info into the club article. I'd like to hear what people think of this - should it be in a separate article? a table?
Any suggestions about what else should be in the article or which bits could be longer/shorter would be welcome. I'd like to get this featured one day (might have to wait until the club's been around a bit longer to have a bit more history to put in) so pointing out anything you see that is keeping it below that standard would be welcome. Also some comments on the prose would be useful - we tend to not to emphasise that on WP for some reason. Too formal? Too informal? Thanks in advance, CTOAGN (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the players should go on a subpage, like Players on the FCUM or something along those lines. Otherwise, the fragments in the player section should be made into regular sentences. AndyZt17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article, while comparatively good for a football club article, is a little unwieldy. Some thoughts:
It is not uncommon for overseas supporters to travel to the UK... - reference needed
FC United's first season has been a resounding success. - too POV, needs rewording
they had the season's second-highest average attendance in English non-league football - ref needed.
It is perhaps worth stressing more the fact that AFC Wimbledon had been a previous successful example of a breakaway fans' club, and the (partial) inspiration they brought.
...it was claimed that a supporter had assaulted a steward... - who claimed it? Any arrests made? Was this later found to be true or untrue?
An important milestone... This was due to... sounds awkward and needs rewording
Player bios and details need to be much, much shorter. WP:BIO makes it clear that non-professional sportspersons are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at length; some of those bios are as long enough to be good-sized stubs. I would leave bios to the FCUM official site and just list the players' names in standard template; if you really think it is necessary, then keep the descriptions but have them down to a sentence or two.
Former players, unless they really have made a significant contribution to the club's history, should be left out altogether.
While length is not a major issue right now, if the 2006-07, 2007-08, etc. seasons are going to be covered in similar detail to the 2005-06 season, it will become unreadable. The season history reads like a list of results strung together with a little extra prose. I would reduce coverage of the current season down to two, three paragraphs at best, in line with other articles. Qwghlm22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this article, and think it definitely has potential to become featured. It's well written and is already listed as a good article, but before I put it up for FAC I wanted to see if anyone has any suggestions. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs -08:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, references should be cited properly (see WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES). {{Cite web}} may come in useful here. More inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs) should be added to cite the facts and figures of this 38kb article- 3 is not sufficient. Ideally, there should be at least 1 per section.
Ok, I have started work, but thats a lot to fix. Citing should be possible, but I have started on the Images. By the way, you mentioned the same image twice. Lead paragraph I'm drawing a blank with so far, references I can try to fix. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs -19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I must point out that there is no such thing as an insufficient notes/citations to article size-ratio. Please specify what you feel needs citation or footnoting and why. Most references tend to be entirely intuitive even if they're only inserted under "References" and without page references.
The "Flight deck configuration" section could use a better image associated with it. The current image shows a control tower but does not illustrate the take-off and landing area or the layout/orientation of the flight deck. Try to get at least one references in every sub-section within the "Future aircraft carriers" section. The "See also" shouldn't repeat wikilinks that are already in the body, so VSTOL, etc. can be removed. The organization of the article can be improved (always be considering and re-considering the organization). The article begins and ends logically with layout/purpose and the future of aircraft carriers but I don't see a logical flow or pattern to the middle sections. The middle sections (from "Common types" to "U.S. Carrier Operations in Southeast Asia") seem to be telling a history but are not organized as such. The sub-heading "Modern carriers" could be removed (I don't see why that section is separated from the section above it). --maclean2519:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction should include some history; although WWII is mentioned, the intro should state something like "First conceived of by XX, aircraft carriers were first built in 19XX as experimental prototypes. The first combat-ready aircraft carriers went into service in 19XX and by WWII they were a major focus of naval warfare." Currently, the intro gives little historical overview/context. Kaisershatner14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None too shabby at a first glance. The only concern I have right now is the tendency for rather over-specific sub-sections. "Future aircraft carriers" could probably be joined into just one big section and one section per national carrier fleet should really be avoided. "UN Carrier Operations in the Korean War" and "U.S. Carrier Operations in Southeast Asia" seem rather out of place. They belong under "History" one way or the other. / PeterIsotalo07:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from sound samples, I'd like suggestions on this article. It's somewhat problematic because the "Lesser Antilles" isn't really a very good music area for a comprehensive encyclopedia, but it's definitely a common enough descriptor to warrant an article. Depending on the context, "Antillean music" most often means either zouk or calypso. More scholarly works do basically the same thing, considering "Antillean music" as distinct in the sense that French Antillean music is different from Haitian music, and the Anglophone islands' music is different from Jamaica. There are connections and similarities between the islands, but there's not really anything that is found throughout the area and not elsewhere. Anyway, I think this describes the topic about as thoroughly as could be useful. Tuf-Kat07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't made a thorough read, but did a few visual corrections in the last sections.
Footnotes should be put consistently in the same place, some paragraphs have them before punctuation, other after, WP:FOOTNOTE favors after.
No "main articles" given for British Antilles
It'd be nice to have some ilustration for the "Indo-Caribean" and Dutch "Antilles" (although I do realize it'd be difficult.)
It's a bit presumptuous to list a "main article" that doesn't exist yet.
Good points, all of them. I should be able to find a couple of sound samples for Indo-Carribean music - I'm not sure I can even do that for the Dutch Antilles. (I can't even find a book to put in Further reading) Tuf-Kat16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The language is a little informal; it reads like a how-to guide on keeping goldfish. "Goldfish make great pond-fish." "Goldfish need only be fed as much food as they can consume in three to four minutes, and no more than twice a day.""It is a better idea to introduce blanched greens to the tank than it is to use live plants as a food source.""Terms like "dropsy" and "swim bladder disease" are thrown around carelessly, with little consideration for the cause." etc. The external links section need formatting and perhaps shrinking. Otherwise, it's pretty good, and really comprehensive. --Iorek8509:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good in terms of factual content (though as you have recognised, more citations would be helpful), but the article would benefit from heavy copyediting. A few suggestions:
References should be in the m:Cite format. Currently there is a mix of formats.
Some of the external links look rather spammy ("amazing goldfish training"?). See WP:EL for guidance on what type of links are suitable.
There is quite a bit of redundancy in the prose, e.g. "While it is true that goldfish can survive in a fairly wide temperature range" could be written as "Goldfish can survive in a fairly wide temperature range" without changing the meaning. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a is useful advice for improving readability, including avoiding redundancy.
I agree with lorek85 that several parts read like a how-to. These parts should be rewritten in a more encycopedic tone. Looking at some of the featured articles about animals, such as Cat or Frog may help in showing how this can be done.
Where possible, try to convert bulleted lists into prose.
I would say it's C+, mostly because there seem to be a lot of statements unsupported by any sources. With sources, it would probably be a B+. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider putting the online references in inline format, e.g. <ref>{{cite web | url=... | title=... | accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref>. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page had a peer review a year ago and has since been improved by members of WikiProject Bristol. We are hoping that it is ready for submission as a candidate for featured Article but would appreciate any comments about what is needed to get it ready for this stage.— Rodtalk16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some initial suggestions, let me know if any need clarifying:
Lead
Is the fact that the location is "between the cities of Bath, Gloucester and Newport" a significant enough item of info for the first sentence of the lead?
In the lead, shouldn't the population figures be quoted as "approx", "at least" etc, rather than exact?
Didn't the Industrial Revolution last a lot longer than just the 1780s?
"unitary districts" should be wikilinked
the coastline is on the Severn Estuary; the Bristol Channel starts at Weston-super-Mare (however it would be a shame to lose a mention of the Bristol Channel from the lead, so can we retain it in some other form)
The Lead shouldn't really contain any referenced statements - instead it should contain summary info of referenced statements elsewhere
History
wikilink first occurrences of Norman, and any centuries
where was the 1257 bridge and does it still exist?
can we give an idea of the extent of the city at each stage of its development e.g. when in the 14th Century it expanded to include some suburbs, which present-days areas are these?
might this benefit from some subheadings?
shouldn't plague have an initial capital?
what form of "suffering" did the Royalist occupation result in?
Can we source the comment that few slaves were brought to Britain, and how few?
scandal - POV
What were the riots about?
penultimate paragraph - why "despite", and which museum?
General
Removal of redlinks by stub creation would be desirable
Can we reference any unreferenced stuff
There are a few places where the canonical when-to-wikilink approach hasn't been adopted
"reliant on" a bad choice of words in that it requires a higher degree of evidence than simply saying that these areas are significant current contributors to the city's economy.
what's the relevance of combined Bristol/B&NES/S Glos/N Som GDP figure?
the city is "more affluent than" the UK as a whole ... I think we mean that the city's average inhabitant is more affluent than one chosen at random from the UK as a whole, don't we?
how has unemployment rate changed over the years - is 2005 a representative point in time?
what does "since the port was leased" mean?
important - one of those "to be avoided at wikipedia" words
Is HP in Bristol or S Glos? Not sure where the boundary is. Likewise BAE at Filton
Re: hiistory being subdivided: I personally don't think it should be: this is in summary style, so the subarticle is there for expansion. There are nine paragraphs in the history section, and since it's in summary style, I can't see it being expanded. I am not a fan of excessive subdivision, and don't think nine paragraphs is enough to need them. Other people might like them though?
Re: HP and BAE: they're both in SG, but as is made clear in the article, we're talking about Bristol in all is definitions, not just the officially sanctioned boundaries. Since they're in the contiguous built up area, and employ many people from the city, they are relevant. Similarly, UWE's main campus is not in the administrative boundaries, but is clearly considered to be Bristolian.
Response Thanks for the comments. I've had a go at fixing some of the identified problems in the lead and history sections, but don't have the expertise for the economy section.— Rodtalk19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Culture
Again, quite a long section - can we split up using subsections?
Prestigous - POV
"thriving" music scene - POV
can we wikilink the musical styles
what is a "cultist" band?
what does "This music is part of the wider Bristol urban culture scene ... and still thrives" mean?
"will become" - crystal ball
is @bristol worth a specific mention?
"fame" - a non-to-ve-used-at-wikipedia word
Animal Magic - "cult"?
what was the "18th century Gothic revival"?
what is "mature verse"?
what was the "Romantic movement"?
what was Robert Southey noted for? Likewise Coleridge
what was significant about the marriage of Southey & Coleridge to "the Fricker sisters"
Did Wordsworth spend more time in Bristol than anywhere else?
all listed comedians are contemporary - is that due to the choice of examples or is this a recent phenomenon?
"world famous" - POV
are inline external links OK per MoS? I thought we didn't do that in FAs, but I may be wrong
unusualness of Brizzle & whether visitors will hear it ... I don't know about this - if they arrive via the Bus station, they'd have to have earplugs in not to hear it!
Politics & government
what does "elected in thirdws" mean?
rogue s on the end of Parliament
Demographics
No comments on this section
Physical geography
"forms to" typo
Does Exmoor really shelter Bristol?
Education
"major" institutions - POV
the mention of the Create centre - seems a bit incongruous, if not spammy
what is a "city learning centre"?
"important" again
Festival of Nature - not really an organisation, more a recurring event
Not quite clear about the Humphrey Davy thing - was the gas discovered in Hotwells? What was his work there and was it connected with the discovery?
Given that this section veers off into science rather than education is it titled correctly?
General
The article is very light on ecological info given Bristol's ecological uniqueness. I'd suggest this topic has it's own major section. I should volunteer to write this, I suppose!
Section ordering - maybe needs some more thought? Major basic topics like demographics & physical geography are late on in the article, while specialist topics like culture & economics are early.
Education: could be either "Education and academia" or "Education, science and technology"? Regarding the Create Centre, the city council seem to consider it a big deal, but I don't know how notable or influential it really is. Comparative visitor numbers for these things would help establish their notability, I'll try and find some. Anyway, how's this for phrasing?
Culture: the section could be subsectioned (though, again, it falls within my personal limits of acceptable section length), but I'm not sure how to go about it without having an absurd number of them, with each paragraph getting its own header (which IMO would be far more harm than help). If it's subsectioned, I'd go for 4 headers along the lines of: "Arts", "Leisure"/"Sport & leisure"/"Sports & events", "Media" and "Dialect".
Ecology: is it worth turning the Physical geography section into a "Physical geography and ecology" section? The Phys Geo section is currently quite short, and by combining them one can relate some of the ecology to the geology and location.
"Recently" i.r.t. the airport should be a specific date range
First were should be First was
and finally
Can we work some of the "See also" links into the text? I'm thinking of Maltese Cross (under Culture?), Wills (under Economy?). A See also list should only really contain things we can't fit in elsewhere. SP-KP17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've been working my way through the problems identified (thanks for all of them) & sorting the referencing format & doing stubs for red links. In politics I'm not sure of a better way to word the bit about how the councilors are elected in rotation. I would agree with the suggestion that history should be sub divided - what headings would you suggest? It would be good to combine physical geog with ecology (Bristol's ecological uniqueness ? POV is it more unique than anywhere else?) and possibly rearrange sections - but not sure of the best way to do this. Any further suggestions/improvements welcome.— Rodtalk08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond on the ecological uniqueness point, what I'm talking about here is really uniqueness by association with the Avon Gorge. As a city (without the gorge) Bristol's not unique at all, but with the inclusion of the gorge, we have (in roughly descending order of importance) two or three tree species unknown elsewhere in the world, a dozen or more (?) nationally rare plant species, some of which are found nowhere else in Britain; and some (not sure how many) insect species which are recorded here and nowhere else or at few other sites in Britain. No other "normal-sized" British city comes close to this (London is a bit of a special case because it's so big). SP-KP12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced History should be subdivided, but if it must, how about something like "Pre-Norman", "Mediaeval"/"Pre-industrial revolution" and "Modern"? Unfortunately, the pre-Norman section would be disproportionately small unless expanded a little... Joe D(t)12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK so basically ecology needs to be summarised from Avon Gorge?. I will have another go at the history section & possibly sub section, but I have a few other questions:
History
I'm having problems finding much evidence of a Roman settlement at what is now Inns Court (apartfrom a dig in 1997 which found "Wall foundations, timber slots, pits and postholes" - can I delete this & leave it covered by "There were also isolated Roman villas and small Roman settlements throughout the area" - further info as identified & added to History of Bristol.
Politics and government
Can I delete the sentence saying who the leader, deputy & leaders of political parties are - ? notability, ? having to be updated each time there is an election etc
The bit on race relations (although referenced) contains a couple of red links ? can I remove Paul Stephenson ? notability
Thanks - it was a redlink on the template "Settlements on the A38 road" which is now hidden - but useful for other articles anyway. — Rodtalk09:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To help editors see which of the above suggestions are left outstanding, can I make one more suggestion - using this technique to strike through those which have been actioned?
I've done strikethrough for the ones I can remeber doing - I just don't like editing other peoples contributions without their "permission" - even though that seems strange on wikipedia.— Rodtalk
Hey all, this has been a small side project for me over the last few months. It started as a very disorganized page and I decided to play around with it for fun. You can see how cluttered the page looked here [2] to see how greatly it has changed. I realize that the sections "recent work" and "achievements" need to be expanded or mixed into the article itself; I'm only hoping for suggestions as to how to continue to approve the article. Personally, I don't think it's ready or capable of becoming, at this time, a Featured Article as its been rather difficult to find any outside, published references for him. However, in the very least, I would like to get this qualified for Good Article and then consider its future growth from there. Thanks in advance for your reviews. --Ataricodfish22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks quite good so far. Could the footnotes be numbered rather than just bullet points as it makes it easier to work out which is which? Also isn't he deaf? Surely this should be in the article, unless it's just a myth. RicDod11:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RicDod, Thanks for the review. The footnotes are a good point, so I've changed the format to numbering. You are right that he's deaf, too, as I remember an interview with him discussing how it effected his work on Scary Movie 4. I will look into this while I'm working on the close of the article, which admittingly still needs work. Thanks again!--Ataricodfish13:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is certainly useful to students who study James Merrill in class, but I'm wondering what improvements might help this quirky article gain a wider audience. Does it have FA potential? If so, what improvements might help it in that direction? Sandover22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, FAs (as shown in WP:WIAFA) require references and inline citations (see WP:FOOTNOTE). The article has a lot about the poem, but not its significance or the perspective of critics (there is a brief paragraph about praise in the lead, but that should be given its own section along with other praise and criticism). Thanks, AndyZt22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an overview of interpretations and approaches to the poem, I see that now. The good news is that a fair bit of that criticism is available online. Also, I think some grounding in Proust is warranted; Merrill borrows the Proustian conceit that an object can evoke, unbidden, a sequence of childhood memories. Sandover01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh. Either I haven't done my job right, or I'm relying too much on readers to look at the poem for themselves and to use the article as a kind of reader's guide. What to do? Let me give this some thought... Suggestions are welcome, of course, from others who are 'puzzled' by the article. Sandover12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to re-read it more closely... The first paragraph under "A puzzle within a puzzle..." seems out of place -- make that paragraph a summary that says in clear English what the "puzzle" is. What is the "solution to the puzzle of the poem (that is) hidden in plain sight"? Maybe I'm just dense, but, having still not read the actual poem, I can't make hide nor hair out of the last couple sections of the article. Tuf-Kat01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fresh translation of a German featured article, so it should be at least pretty good. A place on WP:DYK has ensured a first wave of typo-hunting, but I'd like to know if there's anything missing or wrong content-wise. Any suggestions? --grm_wnrEsc21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written the German version so the only thing that I can contribute right now to the review process is to confirm that the translation is complete, accurate and well adapted to the English language, so in other words - well done. Regarding comments from other reviewers on the content of the article I guess that it might be a problem that it seems that BASICODE had probably little if any significance in the US or the UK, the main English-speaking countries. The project had most of its userbase in the two countries which are specifically mentioned in the article, namely the Netherlands and the German Democratic Republic. --Uwe20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come together very well, and I am hoping that it can become featured. I just want to getideas on how I can improve this article. --Karrmann
I am nominating the Andrew Wiles article, because a structure has been created by making sections without content to create a page with lots of information on Wiles' work, and life, what people think of him, his affect. Some sections have been added that have content. I have tried to includee the mathematics of his Taniyama-Shimura work. Timothy Clemans17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The TOC is overwhelming. I would get rid of all of the subsections about the announcement of the proof, and just have a single level two heading called "Announcement of the proof". You can still include a little material about the rumors swirling around the Isaac Newton lecture. It would also be good to remove the level three headers from the section on the correction of the manuscript. Put in some text, and I'll have more to say. NatusRoma | Talk18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've done some good work so far. There are a few things missing from the article: 1) Details about Wiles's youth, besides his interest in mathematics. 2) A description of what he did between graduate school and his work on the Fermat proof. The lead says that he did work on Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer before working on Fermat's last theorem. A short section on that work would be nice. 3) The work on the proof itself, both the process of proving it and some of the mathematics involved. Also, the article is very technical, which is inevitable: be sure to add wikilinks to the articles on the mathematical terms mentioned in Wiles's article. Finally, if you plan to nominate this as a featured article candidate at some point, you will need citations within the text. I'm guessing that you're relying on Simon Singh's book, inter alia: see WP:CITE if you need information on when and how to cite content. NatusRoma | Talk18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will be able to print some stuff this week and Andrew Wiles article is one of them that I'll print, so I can study it and write some work up and then publish it on the article. Thanks again. Timothy Clemans19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been hotly debated for nearly a year and I recently rewrote it. There are only a few contributors to the talk page, and much of what is written there is not relevant to improving the article. I think the article needs a fresh perspective. Alun13:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs expanding in a number of areas, especially re background and personal life (for example, the article fails to mention the fairly salient fact that she died in 1958). Controversies section is useful and should remain, but could do with a substantial rewrite. There are a few additional minor mistakes throughout the piece. I notice that the preponderance of the refs are to a single biography- I don't personally have a problem with that, but some others may. In terms of the frequency of refs however, this article is very good. Why is she consistently referred to as 'Rosalind Franklin'? Unless there is some other Franklin with whom she may be confused, it is perfectly acceptable to just identify by her surname, which may improve the flow of the text a little. Not a bad article by any means, but there is room for substantial improvement. Badgerpatrol14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I mainly used Brenda Maddox's book because as far as I know it is the only comprehensive biography of Rosalind Franklin. I used Maurice Wilkins's book as much as I could for the King's parts of the article because he was actually there, and I tried to used both as references for the same information as much as possible. Anne Sayer's book may have some additional things to offer. Francis Crick and James Watson were not at King's and I don't know how much of the information they can offer for this period is just second hand. I think the article gives her date of birth and date of death at the very beginning, it can also be added at the end of the article, I wasn't sure about adding it or not. Alun15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wilkins was obviously there, but that doesn't mean he was impartial- in fact, I think everyone accepts that he didn't like her and she didn't like him, at least at the time. Nonetheless, I can't see any obvious POV anywhere. As for the death issue- the article does mention that she died in '58, but the last statement on her working life is She returned to work in January 1958 and was given a promotion to Research Associate in Biophysics.[53]. I'm all for upbeat endings, but I think it might be relevant to mention that she was dead within months! Badgerpatrol16:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, the final paragraph should make reference to her death shortly after, I suppose I was struggling with a way to phrase it and waiting for inspiration. Wilkins and Franklin didn't get on at all well, there has been some comment on the talk page about trying to keep personalities out of the article, so the article tries to reflect the events that happened without too much speculation, I'm not sure how effective this is as a strategy. There has certainly been a big divide on the talk page between a pro-Franklin point of view and a pro-Crick, Wilkins, Watson point of view, one of the purposes of the rewrite was to try to balance the competing views as evenly as possible. It's the reason for the request for a peer review really. Your comments are appreciated. Alun17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it a bit jarring when reading the article, as things are sectioned off and compartmentalized to an extreme degree. As an example, when reading about the race to discover the structure of DNA (in the section on Franklin's work at King's), we read that Watson and Crick had "...similar data to that available to the team at King's". Nary a word about photograph 51. Now I realize it's mentioned much later in the controversies section, but as Watson-Crick's use of this and the info from her talk is not disputed by anyone AFAIK, it's extremely misleading not to make even a barest mention it in the most relevant passage. It's also poor writing style IMHO.
Speaking of writing, this might be symptomatic of a larger problem. There are a lot of citations, and that's well and good, but it's very distracting. In fact, I suspect it is over-cited. I found at least one place that was definitely overdone: "Articles by Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin [48] illuminating their x-ray diffraction data published in the same issue of Nature supported the Crick and Watson model for the B form of DNA.[49]". The first cite is to the Franklin-Gosling paper and the second cite is to the primary book source. Why are they both necessary? Does the book not make it clear that there is in fact a paper by Franklin in the same issue? I suspect it does. So why the first cite? Or, why even the second, if you have the first? The article by Franklin-Gosling (I believe) says it supports the Crick-Watson model. --C S (Talk)08:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also poor writing style IMHO. It's a fair point, I'm not a professional writer, just an amateur trying to do my best, like most wikipedians. The article is highly referenced, this is mainly to show that everything is properly verified. There has been some debate on the talk page of published material that is biased so I have tried to use both Wilkins's and Maddox's books to produce multiple citations for certain points. There is much more controversy surrounding her life than I could ever have imagined when I first started working on the article about a year ago, when I made my first ever major edit of a wikipedia article, and I admit it is very difficult to maintain a neutral point of view, which is another reason for so many citations, to show that this is not just the opinion of an editor, but from a cited published source. My rationale for omiting the use of King's material in the discovery of DNA section was so the section only dealt with what happened and when, the idea being to concentrate on the controversies in a seperate section where they could be more freely dealt with, and would not affect the flow of the biographical narative. It is also true that none of this information had come to light in 1953, the controversies started some 10 years after Franklin's death (on the publication of Watson's book, I have not used this as I think it does not constitute a reliable source), so I wanted to include them in the correct chronological order. This may have been a mistake, but there were reasons for doing it this way. Was there nothing you liked about it? Thanks for the comments. Alun10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty I liked about it, so don't take my criticisms as meaning the article is worthless. Anyway, I hope you take my comments into consideration in your revisions. --C S (Talk)10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alun, its nice to see the improvements made in the article since I last looked at it. My two quick observations (I'm just popping in because I saw your note again and realized I hadn't stopped by, and figured a quick comment is better than no comment): I can see both sides above re-the references, and I think that for the "see also" section there shouldn't be anything (or at least a much leaner list) that was linked above in the article. I usually prefer See Alsos to be related topics that may not have been referenced in the text, but I don't know how that agrees with the WP:MOS. Syrthiss18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am a professional writer about biology and occasional wikipedian. I wrote a very detailed profile of Franklin many years ago for a textbook (pre Maddox, but similar in approach). I just read your entry and these comments very quickly. I think the article generally looks excellent. I would probably make much less of the Nobel Prize, which is moot, and the defense of Wilkins as being moderately off topic. But in any case, I would be happy to contribute another time if you would like. Like some of your critics, I consider Wilkins a not reliable source based on his animosity towards Franklin when she was a alive as well as the heavy criticism he's received over the last 50 years. He's got to be defensive by now. I actually think Watson is more reliable (when he's not talking about her fashion sense!) and I did use his book when I wrote my piece. Anyway, Alun, nice article. Cheers, Eperotao02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently done a lot of work on this article, with what I have done bordering upon a complete rewrite, and I believe that it is now more close than ever to featured status. Thus, I would like to hear any suggestions, to see if I can improve this article any further. Karrmann05:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. I attended a talk at an art school by a former Taurus designer, who brought along a sample copy of the Ford "Human Factors Design Guide." This document had criteria to be used to evaluate designs, for example, controls should have distinctive shapes so as to be operable by touch without looking, and seats should provide for a variety of shifting positions on long trips. As a long time Taurus owner, I believe these principles contributed to the positive public response of the Taurus during its heyday. I would love to be able to find a copy of this document online. I'd also like to see some comments about reliability history and repair costs of the Taurus lines, since a big part of the ascendancy of Japanese sedans in the marketplace has been their reputation for better build quality than American cars. Finally, I'd like to see some mention of how the automotive press has responded to the renaming of the 500 as the new Taurus. I wonder if the professional reviewers have been as skeptical as I have about the very significant difference between the 500 and what I think of as the philosophy and patterns that went into the best aspects of the Taurus. VisitorTalk05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
Very informative article, with a good, logical top level structure and plentiful references.
Introduction of terms: There's quite a lot here that probably won't make sense to readers who are neither North American nor interested in cars in general. For example, from the lead: 'Fairmont-based' - Is Fairmont a place, or a car, or what? I know it's linked, but for something like that I don't need to know much detail about it, just that it's another Ford model. Actually in that case, is it even worth mentioning that the LTD is based on the Fairmont? We're only talking about the car the Taurus replaced, so perhaps it's not worth mentioning the Fairmont at all? Suggest finding a non-North American victim guinea pig who has no interest in cars to read through the whole article and point out the terms that make no sense to them. These can then be introduced at their first appearance (i.e. "North American automobile manufacturer, General Motors").
Can you specify in the lead where the car was/is sold? I see that it was later sold in the Asian/Pacific market, for example, but from the lead one might think it was a US -only model.
From the lead: 'Milestone design' - in the US or worldwide?
Is the balance of the lead right? The model has existed for 20 years, but the longest part of the lead considers the death of the model name and its recent resurrection. Should there be more material on its history in the lead?
Redundancy. For example: "even prompting Honda..." in the lead could be simply "prompting Honda..." and "development started as early as 1981" could be "development started in 1981". See Tony's useful guide on this topic and see if it can be applied throughout the article. A longer example is the first para of 'Fifth generation', I reckon you could cut the length of that para by about half without losing any content. Much of the second para then repeats the same information. Have a go at chopping it down a bit!
"with Ford selling nearly 7.5 million examples during its 20 years of production—a longer bestselling run than the original Ford Model T" I know this statement is referenced, but I'm not quite convinced by it:
- What is meant by bestselling run? I guess in the US, rather than worldwide? Overall or in its market segment? And does it mean length of time as the bestseller, or just a bestseller (i.e in the top 10 for sales)?
- The Taurus's bestselling run (i.e. as the bestseller) was from 1992 to 1996 (five years, inclusive), in the US. Again, in what market segment?
- I find it hard to believe that the Model T wasn't the bestselling model in the US for longer than five years: "[In 1914] Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords" (from Ford Model T). A quick google didn't throw up more exact evidence one way or the other, so strictly speaking I'm arguing from personal incredulity here.
- If that's true, however, the 'bestselling run' referred to above couldn't literally mean the length of time for which the car was the bestseller in the US
- It also couldn't refer to the total numbers sold, since that's 15 million Model Ts, against 7.5 million Taurus
- So does it really mean simply the length of time for which the car was sold in large numbers? The Taurus was sold for 20 years (longer now) against 19 years for the Model T. However, the Model T was essentially the same car for its 19 year run, where several different models were given the Taurus name over the 20 year period, so that's not really a direct comparison. And if this is what is meant, it's not terribly notable, either. Looking at List_of_bestselling_vehicle_nameplates, I can see over 30 other mass production (i.e. bestselling) cars with longer production runs, several of which are Fords and several of which are for the North American market.
If my argument above is right, I suggest the statement is removed as not being very notable. It could be replaced with a more precise statement regarding the model's position compared to other North American Ford models (i.e. something like 'has the third (?) longest production run of any North American Ford model')
"Most Tauruses were built either in Chicago, Illinois (until April 23, 2004, at which time the plant was retooled to build the Five Hundred) or in Ford's Hapeville Plant in Atlanta, Georgia." This sentence appears towards the end of the final para of the lead, which is otherwise all about the ending and revival of the Taurus name. Should it be moved to another part of the lead?
The thoughts behind the writing are generally clear, but I'm finding quite a lot of cases where the wording is strictly ambiguous or incorrect. For example, from the first few sections:
-"the Ford Fusion, a midsize car closer in size to the Taurus". Closer in size to the original Taurus (described as a midsize vehicle) or the 2006 Taurus, a full size vehicle? Suggest this is clarified.
-From 'Development': "Originally, Ford, as well as General Motors, had its engineers, as well as the exterior and interior designers work separately without any input from each other.". Strictly speaking this says that the engineers worked separately from each other, which I guess is probably not correct! Should it be: "Ford, like General Motors, had its engineers, exterior designers and interior designers work in separate teams, with no input from each other."? Also, I'm not too keen on "Originally" here. Does it mean at the origins of Ford? Or at the origins of the Taurus? I guess it is neither and so should probably go or be replaced by a more precise statement on when this practice was in place.
-"As a result, many American cars at the time had their interiors seem "mismatched"". Again, strictly this says that only the interiors were mismatched (with what?), whereas presumably it means that the interior and exterior designs of the cars were mismatched? Suggest "As a result, many American cars of that time had interior and exterior designs that did not match." Does this point also relate to the engineering of the car? If not, is the inclusion of 'engineers' in the sentence from the previous point relevant?
-"The premiere for the Taurus was a resounding one". This can be re-written more simply as "The Taurus' premiere was resounding", which should presumably actually be "The Taurus' premiere was a resounding success"? (Which might in itself be considered peacock-y).
I'm not going to try and pick out all similar instances - you should be able to spot them youself if you read through the article very carefully (perhaps aloud?), considering whether each sentence is completely unambiguous and means exactly what you want it to. I suggest you also find a good copyeditor and get them to go through the article, with an especial eye to precision and clarity of phrasing. If you don't know any good copyeditors, you could either try the League of Copyditors (but they tend to be incredibly busy) or otherwise find someone on Wikipedia whose writing you find particularly clear and ask if they can help you. I also suggest finding someone who does not have an interest in cars, because this will help with the point made earlier about use of 'jargon'.
The development methodology. The first para of 'Development' says that for the Taurus Ford "employed a new strategy of teamwork that would prove to be revolutionary", but later in the same para it says that Ford used "a development method similar to that [...] used when developing the Escort". These two statements seem to contradict each other. Was the methodology new for the Taurus or not?
"...and even BMW 5 Series automobiles" My emphasis. Why is the 5-series picked out in this way?
"If the Taurus failed, Ford would not have been able to survive it, and would have had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy." This can't be a fact, because it didn't happen, so is presumably someone's opinion. If so, perhaps it should be attributed to that person, to make it clear where the view comes from.
The Sable appears in the second paragraph of 'First generation' without having been previously introduced. I guess from context that this is a rebadged sister model? Suggest that it is introduced fully earlier in this section, or possibly even in 'Development' if it was a significant consideration in the development of the Taurus. (Update: The mysterious Sable is finally explained in the section on the 'Fifth generation' so perhaps that bit should be moved nearer to the start of the article).
In 'First generation', the second and third paragraphs seem to overlap in content. Would it be better to make the second para about the exterior design, and include all the material about the aerodynamic styling of the car there, and make the third paragraph about the interior styling? Since the point about 'mismatched' interior and exterior styling was made earlier, it would also be nice to have something here about how successfully the interior and exterior of the Taurus were matched.
In 'First generation', the model designations (L, GL, MT-5 etc) are used in a paragraph about engines before they are explained in the following para. Better to move the fifth para to a position before the fourth para? SHO remains unexplained until even later and is never spelt out. What does it stand for?
Should the 'story' nature of the explanation of the origins of the SHO be made clearer? According to the source used it is only "The story that is most widely accepted among SHO owners", rather than a fact.
What is "a set of ground effects"? I would guess that it's what I would call the airdam at the front and the skirts at the side and rear? I'm 100% sure they don't produce any ground effect - the car will rarely be going fast enough, for one thing, and with no underbody shaping what you're really talking about at best is a (small) amount of front lift reduction from the airdam. I would strongly suggest using another term for this. If it really is normal, everyday usage in North America to call such a styling package 'ground effects' then I suppose it could stay, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic and I feel it's a very misleading term.
First para of 'Second generation'. 'Taurus' is in italics twice in this section, but nowhere else in the article. Suggest the italics are removed - the name appears too often to italicise it consistently.
Minor slip: "The new second generation SHO gets its own distinctive front fascia" should be in past tense.
2nd generation SHO station wagon: It seems obvious that this was only ever a one-off special, with nothing to do with Ford, which makes the statement that "This model never got past prototype form" seem a bit odd. Perhaps that whole sentence could be removed?
Third generation: Did the design team really spend "sleepless nights" on the design, or is this a figure of speech? It's reported as reality, which I suspect is probably a bit misleading. Perhaps give a direct quote instead?
"specially tuned every panel so that it was acoustically pleasing, and so passengers could tell human tones from mechanical tones" I'm not quite sure what this means, can it be clarified?
The Vulcan engine should be wikilinked at its first appearance.
Wikilink Mercury Sable at first appearance (which partly answers my point above!)
Based on those two points, probably do a sweep checking for wikilinking throughout the article.
'Initial discontinuation': The term "foreign sedans" is an interesting one! I guess you actually mean Japanese sedans? Although I think the article as a whole has a fairly North American point of view (as suggested by some specific points above), I guess most readers will understand what is meant by this. Is is right, though? I assume the foreign sedans are built in North America by Japanese owned firms? Are they really foreign, then? Just a thought (from a Brit - our entire car building industry is foreign owned, so I probably have a rather different perspective on it!) In any case, it might be useful to specify which sedans. The Toyota Camry, presumably? Any others? Also, how was the Taurus performing against other domestic sedans? The current wording suggests that it was only 'foreign' cars that were a problem.
The third para of 'Initial discontinuation' gives both sides of the argument about whether Ford should have 'saved' the Taurus or not, but repeats the 'for' argument ("mostly due to the fact that it was believed that the Taurus was just left to die by Ford" and "because some believed that if Ford wanted to save the car, they could have easily done so") . Suggest only one of those is needed, and both could probably be written more neutrally.
"letting the Taurus widdle away". I don't know about the US, but in the UK 'widdle' means 'piss' (as in urine or to urinate). You might want to change the wording!
"After Mulally took position as Ford's CEO" - Who is Mulally? (Update - he's actually introduced in the next paragraph, so probably just shift that introduction to the first para)
Phew: That's a lot of comments! I actually think it's a fundamentally sound article, but it needs some work on the writing, on POV (mildly US centric) and on neutrality in places. Hope that's helpful! Give us a shout if I've been unclear anywhere. Cheers. 4u1e13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment (sorry): Some points from previous peer reviews also do not seem to have been addressed. In particular, Pc13's comments about the "design revolution that saw the end of the 'boxy' cars" and the loss of four wheel disc brakes from this review4u1e14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this page as I think it holds to a high standard of quality, and I'd like to see it become a Featured Article. Therefore, I'm requesting this Peer Review in the hopes that some creative advice can be given to myself and other editors of the page, and hopefully allow us to achieve that with it. Thanks in advance to all who offer advice. Ryu Kaze00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the prose features extremely long sentences that I don't mind, but many readers will find hard to digest. I've started to break a few of them up.
Some of the character, trivia, and location information could be trimmed.
Gameplay: Needs a more general introduction before jumping into the battle system. This can be as simple as "As in previous Final Fantasy games, the player (controlling Tidus) explores towns and dungeons, solves puzzles, and fights monsters."
Gameplay subheadings: Each section is only one or two paragraphs; I'm not sure the subdivisions are much needed.
Battle System: Again, introduce it in a more general context before jumping into the differences between it and prior FF games.
Sphere Grid: The first paragraph is not "brilliant prose". Unfortunately, by Smerek's law, I can't think of a good way to correct this. Not using the word "allocate" would be a start. The second paragraph is fine.
I've edited the paragraph in question, since it seems to have been further muddled with extra information. I'm still not 100% happy with it, but right now it's the direction I'd take it in.
Story: I can never figure out how much is appropriate for a plot summary. But do note that the three CVG FAs with an actual story (LoZ:MM, LoZ:TWW, and StarCraft) cover the game's plot from start to finish, not just the introduction of the major elements. Here it's just as important because FFX sets up the plot for FFX-2.
Thank you! I get it now!
Characters: The designer info is good (if a bit lengthy), but note that the only other mention of the other characters is embedded in a spoiler warning.
Very helpful feedback. IMHO "Sphere Grid" would deserve its own heading as it is notably unique in the franchise. ~ Flooch04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be picky, but I think we need to trim this article by at least 1/5. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice good prose for succinctness. — Deckiller01:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to look good; I'd give you guys a hand, but you seem to have this one under wraps. I recommend a target trim of 40 KB. — Deckiller02:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Story: this summary is a bit wordy in parts.
Characters: I have some reservations about how the designer interviews are integrated into the article, and have been considering creating a section called "Background and development". On the other hand, they also fit quite well into their respective sections, so I am reluctant to do this without other opinions. Thoughts? ~ Flooch04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think a resonable trim for the story section is 30 percent. Normally, trimming plot summaries is my forte, but I think I'll give Ryu the honors for this one :) — Deckiller04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you guys have been working on trimming it all up. Nice edits. As far as trimming the story further goes, I'll try, but I really don't know if it'll be possible to condense any further than its current state while maintaining coherency. There's absolutely so much to FFX's story that relates to either the main plot or Tidus' own place in it (which is integral due to the relationship between him and the player) that it's not going to be easy, and we're down to the barebones of that now, it looks like. I will try, though.
As for the developer info, I think it should remain where it is. It really does fit there, and I just can't see the justification of two different sections to talk about different angles of the same subject. Thanks for all your help, guys. We really are making something special out of this. Ryu Kaze11:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... damn. I've spent nearly the last hour working on trimming, right? And when I started, the page was at 48 kb, right? Well, it's still at 48 kb, and that's after shrinking several sentences in the Story section and punting several parts from the Trivia section (they were repeated on their respective subjects' pages). I don't think it's getting any smaller than this, guys. The Story section can't go any shorter than this without being impossible to understand, the Gameplay sections can't shrink any further without becoming stubs and the Character and Geography sections won't be FA worthy if they lose any developer info. Obviously, Reception is small enough as it is, and that's just with it containing terribly relevant info. Merchandise is the only thing that we could shrink, but I'd advise against that. The article size style guide does say not to sacrifice relevant info for the sake of length. While one might argue that it's not as relevant as the other stuff (which would be true), it does provide diversity in information, which is itself quite relevant.
By the way, remember that the invisible stuff we don't see when looking at the main body of the article (extra text for links and references) is part of that 48 kb. Ryu Kaze11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just managed to reduce it to 45 kb by adding a bunch of reference shortcuts and removing a chunk of invisible text that had been left in the Character section. 45 kb sound okay to everyone? Ryu Kaze12:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it over further, I suppose we could sacrifice the Ultimania section if everyone thinks it necessary. If we do, though, we'd have to do the same on the Final Fantasy X-2 page for consistency's sake. I'd hate to lose the info, but if that's what you guys think we should do, just say so. Ryu Kaze12:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even taking out that whole extra paragraph on Ultimania only reduced the page to 43 kb. I really really don't think we can -- or should -- drop anything else. Thoughts? Ryu Kaze12:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on your latest edits Ryu. The article file size isn't a problem to me. However, the overall coherence is, and to at the moment, the article is in it's best shape ever, even if it is at 43kB. I'm going to take a break, come back in a few hours, read over the whole article and see what other things I can think of.
Game Reception - Seems a dupe as we have the top 20 games and the sales figures on the first paragraph as well. One of them could go bye bye IMHORenmiri14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're down to 42 kb and I think it's about as good as it's going to get. If anybody else agrees that it's ready for FA, I'll go ahead and nominate it. Ryu Kaze15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest completely removing the Trivia section. You've already moved most of the salient facts (like sales figures, etc) into appropriate parts in the main body of the article, and I think that the remaining items under Trivia are truly trivial and don't warrant inclusion in the article. FACs can be brutal for this type of article, so keep it on PR for a few more days and solicit all the suggestions you can. :-) --NormanEinstein21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. Personally, I think half of the Trivia info (the development stuff) is worth keeping, but I really think we could ddrop the rest. Ryu Kaze23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten a lot of good feedback by game fans on the "blitzball photo shoot" trivia bit. I'd like to keep at least a one liner on it with links to the blitz page. The JAT interview where the "mystery" of Tidus 2 voices is explained trivia bit is also one of my favorites but that one I have to admit that it may be gamecruft Renmiri14:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were, indeed, nice. I hated to see any of the Trivia go to be honest. I even saved the JAT thing to my harddrive. Ryu Kaze14:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to recent edits by Renmiri and Flooch, the article's down to 40 kb. We managed to reach your target size, Deck. Good work, guys. Ryu Kaze21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks great now. I'll go through and make any minor touchups I see, but I think we're ready for FA nomination unless anyone has any other suggestions. — Deckiller21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to trim it down tonight, but the story section is still at least 10 percent too long IMO. I highly recommend reducing at least 3-4 lines out of it somehow, just to make the overall article look balance and concise. Then again, this is based on my experience, which may be different then what we'll see in thia FAC. — Deckiller22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the nomination going ahead. As far as trimming the story further goes, I'm not sure if that would be possible at this point while maintaining coherence. FFX's story confuses people who actually played the game enough as it is, really. Ryu Kaze22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I prefer the way the story was fixed up prior to Floorch's revert. I think Renmiri did well in condensing the necessary information. I recommend going back to it. — Deckiller20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to [3]. Please do take the time to read both versions, as I genuinely believe the revert is much easier to understand. Sequence is well and good but Renmiri left the second half of the Story section in a shambles. For a reader that knows nothing about FFX, the revert is much easier to follow. Also, the revert only applies to the second half of the section. The first half, last edited by Deckiller, was kept. ~ Flooch20:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I see what you're saying. The only major issue I see with the second half is some of the sentences may be a little awkward because they have so much info in them. Other than that, I can understand the revert. — Deckiller 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) [from my talk page. Flooch21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Some of the recent changes were good, but please mind proper capitalization, guys. Refer to the Mythology page's archives for the list. Also, why are we omitting Rikku from the story summary? Ryu Kaze21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few subtleties of the story that were missed here. Lines like "fighting Yu Yevon without the Final Aeon prevented him from making a new Sin" are not entirely correct, as he could have used Ifrit or any of them; we should just not make reference to aeons there. Ryu Kaze21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okaaaayyy and apparently my changes didn't take effect and I didn't notice this before closing that window. Fuck.Duck. Ryu Kaze21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I saved it to clipboard, so I still have it... but the changes aren't showing up. Oh, and guys, we should try to make "1,000" always be "one thousand." More encyclopedic. Ryu Kaze21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the... *looks a few messages up* ...duck. Deck, is something wrong with the servers? It's like the page is flopping back and forth between new and old edits. Ryu Kaze22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the servers have been awkward all day. It took me over three minutes to register an edit on the FFX page earlier. — Deckiller22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main page was actually down for a few hours today. And there's definitely something fishy going on -- Ryu's last edit on the article wasn't as extensive as advertised (see diff) ~ Flooch22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what the fuckDuck. It said it took it. Jesus Christ Yu Yevon. Give me a little while to go back and do it all again, guys. Ryu Kaze22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything anyone really feels would get in the way of an FA vote at this point? I mean, even with all we've done to the story section today, it's not that different from what it was before. And we're at that target kb size now. I think we should go ahead and nominate it and see if it can make it. We could always make minor tweaks during the nomination process. Ryu Kaze23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on that concept for me? I'm not sure if I get it entirely. Does it mean "I've looked at the Peer Review and think there was something there you missed, so I'm referring you back to it cryptically" or does it mean "I think you could have had a longer Peer Review"? Sorry if this is a stupid question. Ryu Kaze00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it meant that, if the FA reviewers see that the Peer Review hasn't been touched in a couple days, then it's an old review and the article has been changed accordingly. — Deckiller19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Story: Ahem... Guys, I thought the idea was to shorten the story section... From Deck's latest (and excellent btw) edit of my abridged version to the current version you guys added 1,500 characters!!!
I mean, I love the details of how Sin was crafted an all, but those belong in the mythology or the magic of FF pages not here on story IMHO Renmiri13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was what I was trying to point out earlier; some of the details aren't necessary for the main page. Looks great now. — Deckiller19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the original one I scanned from my book, isn't it ? You can see I cut a bit on Zaon's side... It is the same one I added the numbers to, only in better resolution. The reason I didn't suggest this one is because it is so good and big that it may get the img police on our case. I've had enough battles with them, but if you guys think it is worth it, I can do a decent scan of it with both sides showing! Renmiri03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the scan is here [4]. Can anyone tell me what is the max scale I can have for it and still stay kosher with the copvio limitations ? Renmiri22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap. o.o *saves* Well, I'm sure it would be a lot smaller than that. XD That's a great scan Renmiri. It looks gorgeous. I'm honestly not sure what a safe size for the image would be. Though if it were anything smaller than this, the details wouldn't be all that visible. Ryu Kaze23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think that we definitely should since it displays the game's art style and is a great example of the asian inspiration. I'm going to go ahead and add it in. Ryu Kaze22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Final check?: All that's left now is checking each sentence for correct grammar. FA nominations are particularly picky about "bad sentences". ~ Flooch02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
esol
This user is NOT a native speaker of English and uses English as a Second Language. Please be patient with tipos typos and error grammars!
Oooo - I leave that in the capable hands of the English native speakers here and also leave a msg at JarlaxleArtemis page, he is great at tweaking narrative! I gotta confess I'm not en-N but esol Renmiri02:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
maybe its just me, but i hate red links.... in my opionion, the red links should be taken out, or someone should make a page for them: Motomu Toriyama, Takayoshi Nakazato, Shintaro Takai, Fumi Nakashima, and whatever other ones there are. maybe just a single page labeled "Final Fantasy X Staff" then just have them linked to the apporpriate sections.... but thats just my two cents -Xornok18:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point but I think the proper thing to do is to either stub them (create a stub page for each) or link to their page at IMDB.
Article that has some rather unique material, shedding light on details of North Korean political dynamics. --Soman15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No section headings and few wikilinks other than dates. Also, using just one source is a bit dodgy, as we are relying on that source's neturality. The content is interesting, however. Robdurbar17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long, long time ago I de-stubbed an article on the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex. It's been on my to-do list for over two years now yet I always had "more important things" to do. Recently me and my mother have gathered a collection of 90%+ of all the books on the camp ever published in the Polish language and I decided to make some use of them. Google Books was another useful tool.
I've spent the best part of last four days to expand the article as much as I could. I believe that the current version of the article touches most notable subjects. However, as I did pretty much of the work myself, there is a huge chance that there are things that I omitted or left unexplained, be it by accident or because they seemed obvious to me. Finally, I'm not a native speaker and, despite all the help from Mozzerati and Piotrus, there might still be a lot of simple mistakes there. Because of that I kindly request for a peer review in order to make that article better - and perhaps list it for FAC one day. //Halibutt23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks very comprehensive and thorough. A very ghastly piece of history, and something that is important to document. I had a few comments on the content:
It might be helpful to have a map of some type showing where the 50+ camps were located.
There are a few paragraphs that are inordinately long, which I would like to see broken up for ease of reading.
The text could use a bit of editing polish. For example, "it were the Soviet prisoners of war" => "it was the Soviet prisoners of war"; "the camps started to receive also a large number" => "the camps also started to receive a large number", &c.
There are a lot of red links in the text that should either be unlinked or directed to a legitimate article. The access dates in the notes and references don't need to be linked.
In a number of places the text uses a dash rather than the HTML — tag. Please use the m-dash where appropriate.
You include a list of extermination methods. Were these the predominant methods, or are they just a random sample?
Finally there is a "citation needed" tag in the text that could use an inline citation.
Working on a map right now, should be ready tomorrow. Done (see below)
Could you do it?
I never claimed to be a native speaker... :) Fortunately Mozzerati is and he's doing all the corrections for me. edit: The two you mentioned are now corrected. Thanks!
I will work on the red links soon. As to the access dates - they need not to be linked, but it's the citation templates that do link them. There's little I can do about it.
And why should we use the HTML when there's no need to?
I chose the most predominant ones. I have the list mentioned right below it and I could list all the methods listed by the survivor, but I simply saw no need to. Should I expand on it?
Could you then relate the fact that these were the most predominant methods, rather than a random sample? — RJH15:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Unfortunately, parts of the article were written by an anon user who added a piece or two on female guards to almost all Holocaust-related articles (all in one spree!) and then withdrew from Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to source the claims he added. There is also one "citation needed" tag I added myself near the end of the article, when mentioning the number of survivors. My problem with that number is that none of the books I have seems to mention an exact number of prisoners who survived the camp or the number of inmates the camps had at the moment of their liberation. I'm still looking though.
Copied from my talk page (//Halibutt)
I just thought to review the article:
The lead is too short. It should be at least twice the length.
Please add a location map, and a scheme of the camps (I know you are a map maker)
The article desperately needs some sort of table or scheme or timeline or something of the sub-camps. It is darn confusing to navigate through them: the intro says 50, later in the article I find number 101, and then another article, list of sub-camps, lists about 70.
Points need to separate. For example, don’t talk about arrival of new prisoners when talking about industrial production. Also there are many side-stories (eg about Edda Scheer) which distract from the main points.
“every conceivable horror was perpetrated on the inmates” is a pure 100% POV.
The intro says "more than 50", as there were more than 50 at most times. Further down the number is 101 as this was the overall number of camps. The sub-camp article links 90 sub-camps, as I wasn't able to locate the remaining 11. It also says so in the header (The list is by no means complete as various sub-camps existed at various periods. In addition, the slave labour of the inmates was also used by a variety of companies and farms that accommodated a small number of inmates on their own.). However, I tried to clarify the matter a tad. Is it better now?
I am still puzzled by the problem of "women and children" thingie. Basically, that part was added by anonymous users who added it to the article and then left WP. Could you try to reword that part or move some parts around for better clarity?
It is, but at the same time it's an exact quote from one of the sources (and not the least radical; basically all sources use even stronger statements). Any idea as to how could we reword that? I'm afraid any way we'd turn the cat, the tail would always stick out. //Halibutt17:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you will ever want me to see again, but here it is... Almost 30 kb of comments... Who's now a "proficient nitpicker"? :P Renata23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've adopted your list as my to-do list for the article's improvement process and replied there. I think fixing all the issues you raised would leave this article as close to FAC as it gets :) //Halibutt10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have reached a relative low point in things to be edited. We've recently instituted a newly re-done section on the teachings section, the only citation needed tag seems to concern the Star of Bethleham and something about Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction I think, and really, it seems most everything else is referenced. So therefore, I think its high time for yet another peer review, Does anyone think this might nearly be an FA? What about A class? The only disputes really left now are some UFO theory on the talk page right now, and occasionally people edit the wording in the excruciatingly discussed introduction and make people unhappy, but other than that, most of the new content proposels constitute adding in good amounts of material which may or may not really be necessary. But hey, if anyone has suggestions about more material, it can't hurt. Homestarmy20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a references section which could all do with in line use. I also think a point the article needs to make is what Jesus was preaching: love most of all. Wiki-newbie20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the narrative portion which gave me enough issues to not need to go further.
References still need work throughout the narative section. Here is a sample paragraph The Gospel of John describes three different passover feasts over the course of Jesus' ministry. This implies that Jesus preached for a period of three years, although some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The focus of his ministry was toward his closest adherents, the Twelve Apostles, though many of his followers were considered disciples. Jesus led what many believe to have been an apocalyptic following. He preached that the end of the current world would come unexpectedly; as such, he called on his followers to be ever alert and faithful.
"some interpretations" and "many believe" need to be properly detailed and referenced. This is a commmon problem throughout the narrative portion of the article.
Also the Bible is not being cited properly when it is used as a reference. Especially when you are using direct quotes you need to give the exact edition you are quoting. I also believe you should use the proper citation template whenever you use the Bible as a reference. However beyond even that, it would be better if you could find a more reliable source as to use as a reference. Preferably one that examines several older copies of the Greek manuscripts (which it identifies) in order to write a scholarly opinion focused only on the matter Jesus, rather one that examines unknown versions and translates them with the idea of providing a complete holy book in English. Maybe there is not such a reference, but I would find it surprising.
Also I wonder about the scope of what you are trying to do in the narrative. Rather than summarizing the important opinions on various portions Jesus's life (which have daughter articles) and puuting them into the context of why this is important, the article seems to want to account for every discrepency mentioned in the scriptures. This is a problem throughout the narative portion, but a good example is Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John. Try to focus on telling an account of Jesus and if people disagree about things explain why they disagre and what that really means. Avoid making tis portion of the article about the Bible.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the narrative part has been refactored somewhat recently, though alot of it was re-arranging sentences and choosing different words and whatnot. Homestarmy03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance shows the same problems I outlined above. I will not waste my time going over an article when the nominator neither responds to my review nor makes significant edits to the article within a week. I think it unacceptable for people to make nominations for Peer Review when they are not prepared to immediately to significant work to the article. To many nominations never get more than the semi-automated review and it a shame for people to waste time on unresponsive nominators.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article does a pretty good job of explicating the thought of a recent philosopher/social critic. But the organization is not as tight as it might be. I'm also not quite sure how best to handle the extensive bibliographic references. Some semi-notable criticisms were moved (by me) to a daughter article, which I think improves the undue emphasis issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Address the parts of the somewhat obscure language which is used to explain his concepts (derived from Lacan). Also, there needs to be more in the criticism section, but not too much. --Knucmo221:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The writer of this article does not seem sufficiently familiar with Zizek's work. Some of the definitions are not clear at all, too vague and inarticulate.
This was once a truly great article. It is now being disputed for factual and neutral accuracy. I would like a peer review so we can get it back up to feature article status as it once was. Ardenn16:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if i'd be able to really make a good review of this article, but one thing that struck me was that, well, it's really long. I mean really long. Is it at all possible you could take some of that and put it into other articles, such as a "symbols of freemasonry" or something? Homestarmy23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Lead section is totally unencyclopedic, as a review of the guideline will show. It should provide an overview of the subject and the article's contents. Instead, it mentions nothing of FM's origin, mythic or otherwise, and contains hardly any mention of the succeeding nine or so sections. Since my first attempt at redacting this was reverted, I think I'll leave it up to you guys to decide if it should be fixed. I also edited the lede to rm "organisationally," which I'm not sure is actually a word in English, but whatever.
The article is 75k, and while that's not deadly, there is a lot of dead weight that can be trimmed. History of Freemasonry still runs on and on, and could be cut into two paragraphs or less, with the rest moved into the subarticle. The article you're writing is supposed to be an overview of Freemasonry in general, not an exhaustive review of its history. Good luck! Kaisershatner17:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors have edited this article; mostly, they are interested in the novel as favourite reading, however, now is the time for independant eyes to review and edit it afresh. Also, anyone familiar with the novel, but who have not contributed so far, please check the factual information, accuracy of what is there and what should be included. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)13:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things to point out (as someone who has not read the book by the way)
-I believe the intro needs to be reworded. Perhaps a little bit more substance in there would be good too.
-The plot introduction also needs to have more.
-The spoilers are out of control. I personally don't think there should ever be spoiler warnings, but certainly not 2 sets of them.
-'in medias res' is a nice term, but I imagine about 95% of the people who read the article would have to click the link to know what is being talked about. I know I did.
-"Main Themes" is listed as a stub section, but it's not even that, as there's nothing there. Something should be done about that.
-The movie 'Grendel Grendel Grendel' is spoken of twice. Is that neccessary?
-In the plot summary I see lots of problems with punctuation and conjunctions.
-Sounds like 8th grade writing, with perhaps (just guessing here) pieces of the actual text used, such as "greeted by moonlight", "goring him", and "enraptures and seduces".
-Use of Names and Pronouns doesn't seem balanced.
-Plot Summary seems just to be a list of events as they took place, rather then a summarization of the book as a whole.
-The Characters in "Grendel" section needs to have more, perhaps a list of the characters (without the red links), or maybe if enough of the characters get mentioned in the plot summary, lose the section altogether.
So, I wrote the original article, mostly in one night. I think most of the language problems come from the fact that the plot summary was reduced almost by a third, since it had sprawled on so long. The 8th grade comment was cute, but the pronoun use, unusual terms, and choppy style are a result of this. I'm sorry it's so sloppy, but I'm just too busy to fix it up. Donbas23:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was of course being very critical above. It is not a bad article. I was certainly able to understand the plot from reading it. --Chuck03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the article and edited it extensively for wikification (many errors in basic grammar, spelling, neturality) and also to make it more in the format of a factual summary. The article still needs input from readers who are willing to comment on the themes in the novel - specifically, discussion of the philosophy expounded by each of the main characters. Preferably, these would include links to schools of thought as well as some discussion about what Gardner may have meant.
I've been trying to do a bit of work on tightening up this article, but I'm not really sure where to start. Any ideas or suggestions would be great! Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of improvement since the last peer review. A language spoken as a native tongue by 230 million or more people is significant. I hope this peer review will allow critical evaluation of the article, and enable us to upgrade this to Featured status. --Ragib19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the article's intro: "Bengali is the English word for the name of the language and for its speakers.... From this point forward, Bangla will be used to refer to the language." Wha? The article should use the English word throughout. --NormanEinstein13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good overal, so I'll just focus on what it needs to improve of course, and I figure I owe you. :). Basically I would agree with what is mentioned in the to do list on the talk page, except I'm not sure what "complete tabulation of word lists" means.
Needs more citations. The top 15-20 most important facts should be cited directly to the most reliable source available. The number of speakers is particularly important because of the number of variables involved there. Mention what the different sources claim and why they vary. Other places that could use it are the diglossia discussion, dialects, phonology (what dialect is the given information based on?), the facts in the vocabulary section,
Taxman's demands and views on verifiability are problematic, if not bad per se. The idea that footnotes should fulfill an arbtirary quota is not constructive. They should be inserted where needed, not because someone has decided that there simply aren't enough of them. The final figure could be anything from a handful to the high 30s, depending on the individual article. I also don't agree in the least with the heavy focus on turning most of the article into an academic treatise by discussing sources in prose. The responsibility of which sources to include (mainly in the reference section) lies primarily on the editors, not on the reader, or we'll just reduce ourselves to glorified copyeditors. Citations can be nice additions, but they should be used sparingly. We're still an encyclopedia intended for everyone, not an academic caveat for the academia and their ilk, i.e. the (upper) middle class. Accesibility and readability to a large audience should as much as possible outweigh the needs of a tiny minority of highly source-critical and demanding readers. / PeterIsotalo16:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a discussion of the language history, not just modern history. It's only mentioned in the lead. An explanation of where the Apabramshas fit in and when Bengali became a distinct language would be good. 1000-1200 AD is what many sources say for Hindi, and I think it's the same as Hindi in that respect, but I don't know. A mention of the important sound shifts and other language changes should be covered. The Modern history section focuses on the publication of descritptions of the language and movements, some of which is good, but covering the history of the actual language is more important I think. Were any other scripts ever used for Bangla?
I'm not sure either that there's enough backing for using the term Bangla for the language throughout the article. "Bengali" is so much more common in English that you'd need a really strong reason to not use that name throughout especially given what the article title is.
Some short paragraphs in various places cause poor flow and should be merged, expanded, or removed.
The beginning of the grammar section seems to imply that morphology is inflection of adjectives.
Thank you for thorough feedback. I addressed some the address (really, the only ones I could). I took out the implication that morphology is only the changing of vowels and addeded what I think are the linguistically correct terms, but please feel free to correct me.
Tabluation refered to taking the long word lists that plagued the article and making them into graphics. User:SameerKhan placed that wonderful pie chart in the vocabulary section that took out basically the entire reason we had that task. There's still another big list o' words in the lexical variations of dialect section, but I think we'll be able to take care of that soon.
And we're figuring out the Bangla/Bengali thing ever so slowly.
This article was peer reviewed in February 2006 (see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Enceladus (moon)/archive1). A number of the requests were answered and since then I have worked to bring the article further into compliance with the standards for a Featured Article. In addition recent results have further helped in filling the article out.
I would like to submit this article as a featured article, however I thought it was wise to have this article go through one more peer review, particularly after these recent major edits, before submitting. So suggestions for work needed to get this article to Featured Article status will be greatly appreciated.
There are two major issues that I would like to acknowledge. First, the article lead does not yet conform to WP:LEAD. Currently, the article lead is one paragraph in length when it should be 3-4. Second, I am a little lost in how best to cite and reference this article. I have both a notes section, containing the numbered citations from the article using the the <ref> element as well a References section, where full citations for journal articles and books used are listed. This does give the appearance that the references are being given twice in these two different sections, Notes and References. This was done after reading the comments of several FACs that failed because the inline citations looked cludgy after including the full citations inline using templates. So the citations inline, displayed in the notes section, are in shortened, Science-journal style, whereas in the references section, full citations using the Cite Journal and Cite Book templates. This reduces the cludge of templated inline citations, but increases article length. So advice on how citations and references should be arranged would be appreciated. --Volcanopele00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I responsed to Volcanopele's earlier peer review request and all my suggestions were met. I can't honestly think of any further improvements to this article. My only quibble is that the orbit diagram is cluttered with too many overlapping labels, but I'll see if I can fix that myself. Regarding the lead, I think the opening paragraph sums up everything pertinent with admirable brevity and I see no need to expand it into 3 or 4 paragraphs. I think it's time for Volanopele to move on to the next moon... :) The Singing Badger20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty good article. Nice work, but I have a few comments:
Some of the text contains time-sensitive information, such as: "Features discovered by the Cassini mission have not yet received names". These are likely to become obsolete at some point, so could you include a date?
The "Surface" section includes a brief description of the "title image". This should really be folded into the image caption, as the image may get changed at a later date rendering the text obsolete.
I also have a minor issue with how some of the terminology is used. The term "viscous relaxation" is used to describe terrain before the meaning has been explained. The highly technical terms "subparallel grouping", "curvilinear groove", "high phase angles" and "solid-state greenhouse models" are never explained. This makes the article targeted for a well-educated scientific audience, rather than just anybody.
On the first mention of the "E ring", you might briefly add that this is a component of the Saturnian ring system.
Thank you for your comments. In my latest edit, I think I have addressed most of your comments though when I have more time later, I will look for more time sensitive information. In the time being, I have added a link to As of 2006 in the example you pointed out. For many of your other comments, I found a way to just use less technical terminology to get around have to add more text to explain the term. With viscous relaxation, I just deleted the first reference to it so that the new first utterence is right next to the explanation. I have added links to the requested terms, though there was already a mangetosphere link in the previous paragraphic to "magnetospheric". To Singing Badger, I don't have access to a machine that runs Celestia today, so if you can create a better graphic, by all means. I have relatively limited knowledge of the inner workings of that program, so help in improving that graphic would be appreciated.
The article is detailed and well researched but unfortunately deeply POV-ridden, for example:
He was extremely polite, cultured, quiet, and reserved. In appearance he was small in stature, slim, and always impeccably dressed. His sense of sportsmanship was of the highest caliber, and his combination of brilliant play and personal modesty made him a welcome guest everywhere.
However, User:Drogo Underburrow objects my editing of the article, and redaction of comments like "an invaluable resource" and "a great book", on the basis that I haven't read the relevant books. I wondered if Peer Review might clarify the situation. Also other suggested improvements to the article would be welcome. Soo16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this edit is your only contribution to the article, I question the good faith of this request. Inline citation however, are a good method to attribute value judgements without cluttering up the prose needlessly. --zippedmartin22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I have not edited the article ought to tell you that I am neutral with respect to it. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF and check out my edit history here before making accusations. Soo11:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asuming it doesn't mean you're never allowed to question it. It's never stopped people throwing policy pages around innappropriately, for starts. Peer review is simply most effective when active editors on the article request it, and are willing to put in work to make changes suggested. As you're unlikely to go and get the reference book, look up relevant passages, and then edit the article, there's not really much good me saying to you "inline citations are often useful for value judgements". If you're coming to peer review because you had an argument with someone on the talk page, you're probably not here for the right reasons. Just leave the pov tag if you like and get back to creating and editing articles. --zippedmartin16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has gone from being simply a translation of the Italian article (which was a Featured Article) to a very detailed and well-researched article that has gone far beyond the Italian original. Keep in mind that yes, there are a few missing links. But that aside, I would like to know how to upgrade this to at least Good Article status. --TcDohl16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
needs a "creation" section discussing the authorship, with words from the creators themselves if possible. needs a "legacy" section discussing the impact, significance, other mangas and anime that were infleunced by it, what the creators did next, anything other than the manga and anime. a "reponse" section detailing sales, critical and commerical response, viewing figures etc. Zzzzz16:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no meaningful content and a lot of utter bull... impressive. But seriously, any form of serious secondary source would help the article a great deal. But, as directly fixable points:
Relationship between manga and anime is confused, the structure and a fair bit of the prose implies the anime came first.
There's mention of the style of the manga, at all.
There's no meaningful mention of the style of the anime, just a misleading sentence about the portrayal of weightlessness.
There's no mention of the shows creators, bar a redlink to the director.
The lead is poor, and US-centric.
Bullet points are terribly overused, as are notes to backup uncontroversial statements: "the Planetes manga is a 5-part graphic novel series available in English from TOKYOPOP.[17]"... I mean...
The description of the plot, and themes, is terribly uncritical: "set a precedent of portraying a highly multicultural cast of characters respectfully and with minimal use of racial stereotypes" OH, COME ON! Of the three black characters that appear in more than one episode, two are terrorists, and the third is the kind of sambo 'comic' character I thought the world had grown out of. Even has seven children, cliche cliche cliche.
Spoiler section contains no meaningful content, either cut it, or discuss the ridiculously chauvinistic ending.
Dunno about sales figures, but if you want TV ratings you can get them from a back issue of Newtype.
I understand a whole lot of the suggestions you say. Anyway, I thoroughly disagree with your assertion about the racism. Anyway, if you count Hakim as a "black" terrorist (who is actually Arab), then you also have to include Ismail-sempai (from the manga), Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, and his daughter (who are also Arab), neither of whom are terrorists. Lavie is definitely not a "sambo" character. He's not even black, he's Indian, and doesn't have the characteristics of a "sambo", save the dark skin. Who cares if he's got seven kids? It gives the character a clear motivation throughout the series and not simply as "because he's Indian" (though I've never heard the one about Indians having many kids).
I also don't understand how the lead is US-centric. I live in Canada, and I don't really see how that's so. --TcDohl02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Fee is also black, and several chapters in Volume 4 of the manga were about Fee's hermit uncle in the American South who was wrongly accused for crimes because he was black.--TcDohl02:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that the manga is different, but *in the anime*, the three main darker-skinned-than-japanese characters are either terrorists or racially stereotyped comic characters. I dunno who's been covering that wikip sambo page with links to African American that have been confusing you, 's an Indian character. There's a better term for what I mean (the kind of comic, incompetent and selfish manservant character), but I can't remember it atm. Anyway, whatever preaching the anime does on globalisation issues is thoroughly underminded by its institutional-rasism in characters is portrays.
The lead is I guess more just not-very-good than amerocentric - needs to be three or so paras, the current emphasis on the english language releases just looks a bit silly. --zippedmartin16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What three characters? Lavie, Claire, and Hakim? You know, you totally forgot about Fee, who is actually African American. Anyway, you still try to explain everything about Lavie, but I still haven't heard of that stereotype. If he were French, then that'd be a stereotype. And if you haven't noticed, most of the SDF were white. The "executive committee" of the SDF were all white, save Hakim. The smoking room bomber was white. The guys that took Dolph hostage were white. The Von Braun invaders were white. Also, Claire didn't start out to be a terrorist, only a victim of bad circumstances. And if you include her as an evil "black character", then what about Temara? He also was a victim of circumstance, but he turned out to be good. The characters in the anime portrayed in a less favourable light are almost all white. Locksmith, Dolph's successor, Edel's ex-husband, Colin, etc. --TcDohl17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, white 'baddies' doesn't change the fact non-white-non-asians are largely portrayed in a negative way, and conform to the very stereotypes the article currently claims are avoided. (French? I don't get that. You clearly have different French stereotypes where you come from). Fee would count I guess under my clarification, but is clearly mixed race (jesu, I feel like a neo nazi going into this kinda detail) and more to the point, first-world. It's the third^H^H^H^H^H less developed nations that really get it in the neck from the anime. I guess if it's just reinforcing what you believe anyway (and Hollywood certainly believes it), it might be less of a sore thumb. Anyway, that's one point out of... lots, look at the others if you disagree with that one. Arguing over one sentence is not a productive way to spend peer review time. --zippedmartin18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find the ending mysoginistic, either for the anime or the manga. In the manga, Tanabe goes back to work and goes on a whole other thing with Fee and Yuri. Hachi goes to Jupiter. If you're talking about the anime... do you really expect a pregnant woman to go and do a very dangerous job in space? That's not mysoginistic, it's just putting safety first.
Oh, and the trickster image that you were trying to explain. I thought of the French because of the whole mime-trickster stereotype. --TcDohl18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is terribly anime-centered atm, we'll be talking about the anime for as long as you think plot points are more important than gaping holes in the content of the article. So, if the only way you can deal with your vocal and idealistic female lead is by leaving her disabled and pregnant at home while the guy goes off to pursue his career, you'd still consider joining a feminist association? Look, what's lacking is not me bitching about these minor things on the talk page, it's any kind of *serious* criticism in the article. Which, unfortunately, you're unlikey to find in English, and certainly not on the internet. --zippedmartin18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to merge trivia with article. Incorporate see also into main body and remove the section when empty. Plot should be next to characters. Realism, themes, reaction should go together (and trivia probably should be merged into it). Finally, why do we have manga section but no anime section?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is was nominated to be a featured article and has undergone extensive changes. It has been nominated to have its structure, grammar, and content reviewed as well as to eliminate any inconsistancies and redundancies. JamesOttawa13:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence should contain the article title in bold, or some approximation of it, as the article title should reflect the subject of the article.
Generally English quotations are not italicized (the Queen's title, for example), but foreign languages are (her title in French should remain italicized). Kaisershatner19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Concerning structure/organization:
At 80kb this is rather long and may benefit from splitting off sections into sub-articles using Wikipedia:Summary style. Since the "History" section of this article is 34 kb, this is the best candidate. The section "Debate on the Canadian monarchy" could be a summary style of Monarchism in Canada as the two are (currently) about the same topic and repeat some info.
The size can also be reduced by using more concise and relevant writing. For example, the first two paragraphs in "Constitutional role" are not relevant to this section but should be in the "History" section.
Why is that sub-section called "International vs. domestic role" opposed to "International and domestic role"? The "vs." implies that there is some competition between the two but I don't see what that might be.
The one-sentence paragraph "Usually the Queen's Canadian governments pay only for the costs..." should be attached to the previous paragraph as they both discuss financial costs of the monarchy.
Currently, the "The Crown and the First Nations" section use a series of small paragraphs the describe individual events. This could be better organized as a few larger paragraphs that combine these events by a common theme. For example, the "portraits of the "Four Indian Kings" and the "bicentennial gift" paragraphs could be combined or the "Treaty No. 7" and "Bay of Quinte" paragraphs.
That last one-sentence paragraph in "The Crown and the Canadian Forces" could be merged into the first paragraph of that section.
I don't think "Organizations under Royal Charter" requires sub-sections - they could probably be better presented as a paragraph or two (and the sub-section "Canadian Organizations with Royal Patronage" has useful explanations that go into the introduction of this section.
Concerning the prose:
Avoid having sentences starting with numbers, like "16 of these countries are specifically..."
Is it possible to simplify this sentence in "International vs. domestic role": "Although, aside from being Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II is also separately Monarch of each of the other Commonwealth Realms, each nation – including Canada – is sovereign and independent of the others." (it seems to run on or be talking about two different things.)
"Contrary to common misconception, Canadians do not pay any monies..." probably best just to leave out that first phrase.
Concerning the references:
The ext.link in "International vs. domestic role" is supposed to be a reference for the 2004 figure of $49 million. Create a footnote out of it.
"It has been correctly said since the death of Queen Anne..." may require a footnote unless it can be rewritten so that it isn't a quote or attributing the phrase to somebody.
"Recently activists opposed to Bill C-38 lobbied Queen Elizabeth II..." should probably get a footnote to confirm this.
The Louis St. Laurent quote in "Cultural role" will require a reference.
Other comments:
If the sentences at the end of paragraphs in "Constitutional role" (and elsewhere) like "(For more explanation of the Monarch's role, see Governor General of Canada.)" are necessary then format it like that suggested at Wikipedia:Summary style. --maclean2505:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a recovery section. The information is out there we just need to stick it up there. Also the storm history section could be trimmed a tad. I'll get to work on the recovery section. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. An aftermath section in general would be useful. The storm history should only be one section, not broken up like it is. Hurricanehink12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The table has been shrunk, which is good, but also important is to restructure it to give more emphasis on direct deaths. In the current table you can find out how many total deaths there were in florida, but the (more important) number of direct deaths in florida is not shown anywhere. — jdorje (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to say you cannot find out how many direct deaths there are in the United States (except by adding each entry). — jdorje (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find much in the way of numbers for my recovery section and I'm now just trying to make it more neutral. I should be able to post it tomorrow or Friday. I've been kind of busy with homework and stuff. However, I see no reason to delay the posting of the section much longer while we look for numbers that may not be there. So, if anyone has better luck with those numbers, hats off to them. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn school work! :) Personally, I don't think the Ivan article is close enough. Ivan still has too many organization problems and still doesn't have an aftermath. If it were to go to FAC, I would have to vote no based on how it is. The storm history should only be 1 section, not 4 subsections. Information there should be condensed and moved elsewhere to flow better. For example, move anything about rain to the impact section- that's why it's there. Possibly remove one of the pictures from the storm history, and maybe move it elsewhere. Maybe there should be a records section. That could include it being the lowest latitude Category 4, Cat. 5 information, and Hydrological Records. More citations are needed, like in the preparations section. How do we know that 500,000 Jamaicans were told to evacuate? Also, should the speculation about Katrina be there? The death table needs to be redone. Like Jdorje said, it should focus on the direct deaths. The table, in my opinion, should go in order of where Ivan struck, not alphabetically. It would go Barbados, Grenada, Tobago, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, then the U.S. states. Eric, you can use some of the Grenada impact section for the aftermath section if you want; there's info about international aid that shouldn't be in the impact. Like I said about the death table, the impact section should go in geographical order. Perhaps start with a Leewards Island section, followed by a Grenada subsection? More info should be found on meteorological information on the islands... I'm sure you can find more on Jamaica. You should add some damage figures as well. The TCR has a lot of information not in the article yet, including damage figures ($1.85 billion in Caymans, $815 million in Grenada) or actual damage (47,000 damaged homes in Jamaica, for example). The USA section should be broken up by state, if possible. There's simply too much to do for Ivan right now. I think we should make Ivan a Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight, or even restart the article on a user page. That way, we can find all of the sources, and it should be easier in general. We should withdraw the peer review, given that no one's seen it other than us, and I think, in my own biased opinion, that we should focus on Mitch. That article has sources for everything, impact broken up by area, and only needs an aftermath section. What does everyone think? Hurricanehink13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has an aftermath section, just not a recovery section. Also, the changes aren't as simple as you describe. Let's be storm specific here: Ivan last 24 days so there's going to be a helluva lot of storm history to it. Also, Ivan's incredible regeneration deserves its own sub-section. Therefore, we just need to go through it and remove the unnessesary facts. It flows really well the way it is now. We might want to try a copyedit to review the entire article. I really like Ivan article and will work to improve it. I personally think that it's quite ready to be an FA but apparently other people don't. Since it's just a lot of little things, I don't think anything drastic or time-consuming needs to be done. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see why Ivan's storm history should be different from every other's. It can be 4-5 paragraphs, maybe more, but, IMO, it doesn't flow at all and is too long. You are right, there's a lot of unnecessary facts, but if you trim it down, it could flow really well with, say, 4 paragraphs. The first could be formation to Category 4 status, then its track through the Caribbean, then GOM to landfall to becoming extratropical, then Ivan's return. The changes I suggested are just things that need to be done. Compare Ivan to Floyd, an existing FA. That is what I think Ivan should be like. The impact section should be doubled, if not tripled in size, because that is the most important part of a typical hurricane article. Some sections are too short, and would require a lot of work. Hurricanehink20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually liked the way the storm section was divided, as all the sections in the article are long, and trimming it would disrupt the balance. If there's any section I would get rid of is the Hydrological records section, which can be merged in the storm history. I'd say that the Impact does need a bit more information, but I'm not really able to help much, as I'm beginning final exams now. Titoxd(?!? - help us)22:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The storms section shouldn't include information that's not related to the synoptic history of the storm, but ivan might still have enough to justify subsections here if the section becomes too long (I think it was probably me who added the subsections). One example of an article that has unrelated information however is Hurricane Wilma - that storm history does need to be trimmed/reorganized. — jdorje (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first article I wrote completely from scratch without any template to follow. Any and all feedback would be appreciated. Thank you! --CasualFighter21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a good, informative, well-written article, and one that very usefully fills a niche of missing information in the mixed martial arts sphere. Congratulations! I did find a few ways I think it could be improved however:-
I'm not entirely sure how, but I think the opening paragraph needs a re-think, bearing in mind the usual considerations of how much a reader who is ignorant of the general topic, or one who had come from an oblique link (e.g. someone following a link from the film article Million Dollar Baby), would understand the context. Although you've obviously written it with this in mind, I'm not sure it currently goes quite far enough. It's not really clear for example, if we assume the reader knows nothing about combat sports, that cutmen operate only during the breaks between rounds!
Nothing I've seen in the article explains *why* cuts stop fights (i.e. what are the safety considerations that cause combat sport fights to be stopped on cuts), and which ones are more likely to stop them than others. This is a central discussion for this article... although it's almost begging to be, or be part of a separate article and have a summary section here. It may already exist - whatever, it needs to be part of this article or linked and highlighted here. Let me know if you need help on this.
I would like to see inline reference links, I think this would make the references a lot more usable and help kickstart a reader's personal research.
Vaseline may be a genericised trademark in most of the English-speaking world, but unless the non-brand term for it is unrecognisable, I still think it's better/safer to refer to it by it's non-brand name (in this case, Petroleum jelly). Or perhaps Vaseline (petroleum jelly) in the article.
The article could generally do with more wikification of terms. For example, there's a solid article on Nosebleeds (which is also the article for Broken Nose). Even some terms that currently don't seem to have an article could do with a wiki-link where an article would be useful - what about Athletic Commission, a term that would not be immediately understandable even to many semi-informed readers? The article could be wikified a lot more than it currently is, and I think this would be of use to many readers. Again, this is an area I feel qualified to help directly with if you wish assistance.
To cover the entirety of a subject, you need to think laterally. Cutmen (or at least corner-men acting in a cutman capacity) have been important in fiction - Million Dollar Baby, Rocky, probably several others. A "cutmen in fiction" section would probably be good.
I think this is an interesting article, but it's got a big problem in that it talks about normal practices for cutmen and such without citing any reference works on their practices or routines. Is it just your opinion and observations or did you get it from reading a book? If it came from books and magazines, or documentaries, the article needs to cite them, otherwise it's full of original research. Night Gyr00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I missed the section at the end of references. This is why inline cites are useful. More inline cites mean that it'll be easier to see where you're drawing your facts from. Night Gyr00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent the past six months working on this article and I think it's nearing featured level. It's way long, and some quotes may be redundant, so feel free to be bold and cut whatever appears irrelevant or extraneous. I'm still mulling over using summary style, because I can't see how this would work, except possibly through article titles like Ketuanan Melayu 1963-1965 (or something like that). I think the article is still quite readable anyhow, but then I've spent the past six months getting to know every nook and cranny of the topic well in depth, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to readability. I know there are some roughs spots language- and formatting-wise, so feel free to point them out or better still, fix them. I know the article could use more images, but I think the two existing fair use images are stretching it a bit, and it's hard getting hold of free images that are at least tangentially related. Johnleemk | Talk19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this a copyedit; here's some stuff I spotted while editing that you should probably look at:
At certain points it seems ambiguous as to whether you're speaking of the Malayan Union and the Federation of Malaya as entities or events. From their respective articles, it seems that the both names refer to the state, not to the act of unification, and I've edited accordingly in a few places, but this could probably take a little more scrutiny.
Subsections would be in order for some of the larger sections (e.g. Pre-independence).
Explain in more depth what the Banishment Ordinance is if you're going to call it by name.
I'm not sure what "definitive people" means--that might bear explanation.
The "May 13" section presents its facts in a confusing order--maybe make it more chronological?
Use of terms should be standardized. For each Malay term used, it should be formatted the same way for each use after the first. I've tried to do this to some extent, but it could use more scrutiny (this is almost always an issue with an article that's written over a period of time).
Narrative flow between sections is a little weak at several points.
The section on the NDP is actually composed mostly of criticism of the NEP. This criticism should be broken off into a separate section at least, and seems to be focused on more than its importance to the article would dictate, and should probably be balanced by more discussion of what NEP proponents said in response to these critiques.
Here's my overall assessment. This is very good stuff, and I had a great time reading it. It's a very detailed article, which I enjoyed, but it may be a little too in depth on certain points, and it has a few problems with cohesiveness. I don't think it should be broken up into subarticles, but I did come up with two suggestions for how to deal with this. First, I would suggest shifting the focus a little away from blow-by-blow accounts of the various occasions on which this issue has cropped up, and towards more overt discussion of the themes and historical trends that link them. (The information is in the article, but I think it should be more central to the overall structure.) Second, I would rely a little less on quotations. I like articles with a lot of quotations in them, but I think this one goes a little too far at times. Leave enough in to keep the feel that the article currently has, but consider removing any that could be replaced with a shorter section of text with and still get the same information across. I think that doing those two things should result in a slightly trimmer and more unified article. Great work so far, though. Let me know if you have any questions about this. RobthTalk17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did some of the minor stuff already. I'm not sure which of the Malay terms you're referring to, since IIRC I placed everything in italics. The NEP criticism is sort of related to the NDP because there was a lot of discussion at this time about whether the NEP should be continued. I hope I made it clear in the article. The NEP, NDP, etc. are closely related and often equated with ketuanan Melayu, as can be seen from the recent events in Malaysia, but I'm not how to make this clear, as this is based mostly on my own research (and is thus inadmissible). I tried to find more counter-criticisms of the NEP, but basically they all boil down to either a restatement of ketuanan Melayu, or a claim that the Malays have not achieved full economy parity -- both of which are adequately covered by the article, IMO. I'm going to find some quotes to trim tomorrow. I'm not sure which sections don't flow very well, though -- could you give a couple of examples? (I was actually considered that I was providing too much context in some cases, such as the Razaleigh vs Mahathir issue and the sacking of Salleh Abas.) The only one I can think of is the break between reformasi and Abdullah's premiership, and I'm not sure how to bridge this. Maybe I'll go dig up some stuff about the 1999 election and see if ketuanan Melayu was used as an issue there. Johnleemk | Talk19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes you've made so far. Clarifications, responses, etc., follow:
Terms: Italicization is consistent; what wasn't was the use of quotes, wikilinking, and appositive definitions. In general, I tried to place the definition of a term with its first use, and then from then on make the use of wikilinking and quotes consistent, but since I was going section by section there may still be inconsistencies.
NEP/NDP etc. Sounds like you've been thinking about this, and it looks like a tricky spot. It would be great if there was a source that made the connection more overt, but failing that, the way you've reordered it to demonstrate how the NDP grew out of the debate over the NEP looks good. I think you're right about the explanation of the pro-NEP position being adeguately dealt with in the rest of the article.
Other places to improve flow:
If possible, it would nice to discuss Mahathir's rise to power right before moving into the section on his administration, to smooth the transition.
An explanation of how the 1990 election led into the NEP/NDP debate would be nice.
The transition from "Meritocracy" to "Racial politics" is a bit sharp.
If all of these can't be ironed out, its not that big of a deal. Narrative structure of articles is sort of my "thing," so I bring it up whenever I see room for improvement, but these aren't huge issues.
I dug up some sources and tried to make the connection between the affirmative action policies and ketuanan Melayu more clear, but it might only have muddied the waters further. I've also added some defense of the NEP to the appropriate subsection, although it may not be fully integrated into the flow of the text. I'm having trouble finding quotes to take out; I took out a couple that were never really solid in the first place, but a lot of the rest seems good. I was thinking maybe we could cut down on the quotes from historians, but most of them seem to help the article quite a bit. Sigh...maybe I can get this done tomorrow when I'm not so sleepy. Johnleemk | Talk17:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... looking through it, I like all of the quotations, and I don't see anything calling out to be removed; at the same time, it is a big article (94 kb! Eep!). It's a difficult balance to strike. I wish I had some sort of insight, but I'm coming up empty. RobthTalk16:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some modifications to the article based on your suggestions. I couldn't find anything related to the NEP or NDP about the general election, and I couldn't think of a way to better segue "Meritocracy" into "Racial politics", however. Johnleemk | Talk21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified the introduction to just say what the concept is, as well as a brief mention of who uses the term and who opposes it. Also removed reference to the "probable cause for rise of MCA" block from pre-independence section, as I think it is not very relevant to the rest of the section, which discusses the rise of the "Malay rights" movement (if I may call it that way). Kimchi.sg | talk17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is relevant, since the MCA was the first to challenge the idea that only the Malays could be sovereign over Malaya. I also restored Malaya to the lead, since Malaysia and Malaya are two different geopolitical entities, and some proponents of ketuanan Melayu explicitly claim only Malaya (since technically the natives of East Malaysia aren't Malays) for the Malays. I also spruced up the lead to act as an overview of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Johnleemk | Talk21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is cosmestic but I feel the article could use larger photos i.e. wider width. The article is fairly long and readers might want to see some illustrations. (heh, two of the photos are mine, so, the ulterior motive is greater publicity for my pix but hey, my argument is still valid, isn't it? =) ) __earth(Talk)11:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...larger photos? One (the real estate ad) needs to be viewed in close-up for full effect. I suppose the image sizes could be tweaked, but I'm concerned that those with smaller resolutions will be bothered. I'm trying to find more images that can be used, but it's difficult because they have to be relevant to the section in question. It's therefore a bit difficult to track down free images (fair use has rather stringent applications) for most of the article. Photos of the 1955 elections and of Mahathir explaining bangsa Malaysia would probably be fair use, though. The main problem is tracking them down -- there's nothing about them online. Systemic bias...*sigh*. Johnleemk | Talk14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah, I found free photos to use! I also got a fair use picture of opposition to the Malayan Union from my history textbook. My main concern at present is whether the article is too long. Should we use summary style, or would that just disrupt the flow of an otherwise fine article? I'm leaning in favour of the latter, but obviously I'm biased. Johnleemk | Talk11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two months have passed since the original peer review. After a few bursts of activity on the page, it has stabilized, but there is still some criticism over the general flow of text. Could some fresh pairs of eyes have a look, maybe suggest or do some copyediting? --JohnDBuell00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
The Legacy section is weak, and a Reception/Criticism section would help to make it more comprehensive.
Double check for typos, for example manager.He was and least resistence.
There are excessive commas: the puritan leader, who founded the town, In fact, his father, Francis, who (you already introduced the father), And, when , director and actor, by Gustave , pantomime segments, that were , etc.
Fix up redundancies. He was a popular actor in the history of the United States. is unnecessary and probably should be merged with the first sentence, along with a citation. Through his association with this play his association with is unnecessary, as you already stated that he wrote it; Through this play is enough. he broadly amassed fans all around the world - if he amassed fans all around the world, then broadly is obviously a redundant word.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
The article is in serious need of some serious library research to back up a lot of it. I won't deny that. I'll have a look at some of the other points when I get a chance! Thanks! --JohnDBuell17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again. It´s the most complete article in the Internet. It could have some problems with the spelling though. But it could be a great Featured article.--AndresArce17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)AndresArce[reply]
Sorry but the page is in need of a good, thorough editing to give it a suitable polish.
The external links in the text need to be converted into inline citations. The pafe is in need of additional references, also using inline citations.
All double-dashes in the text "--" should be replaced by the — HTML tag.
Inconsistent use of parentheses for ages and dates. In some places the year is in parentheses and in others it is not. Could you just get rid of the parentheses, as appropriate? Also it usually isn't necessary to give both his age and the date. It seems like the date should be sufficient unless the age is also important for some reason. (Having both age and the year in parentheses is potentially confusing.)
Most of this article is very difficult to understand, some of it doesn't make any sense at all, for example I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean Also, Cosby only pledging would have been to get own wealth only, disregarding both public function and social improving of the Royal Governance. Much of the article reads like this, it really needs someone to thoroughly check the language.
The article claims he had six sons, but goes on to list three sons and three daughters, later the article talks of both male children. The article needs to be more consistent and needs a fact and reference check.
In 1711, Sir William Cosby (21) married Grace Montagu, British lady (sic) with connections at Buckingham Palace, as sister of George Montagu --Earl of Halifax--. I am unsure what her connections at Buckingham Palace means, the Royal Family bought the Palace in 1762 according to the Buckingham Palace article, so if it is a reference to Royal connections it is an anachronism. Also the link to Geroge Montagu seems to direct to the wrong person, it should be to George Montague, 1st Earl of Halifax rather than George Montagu.
This article needs a lot of work IMHO. The English needs to be thoroughly checked, it needs to be properly verified and it needs a fact and reference check. The internal wikipedia links need to be checked to ensure they point to the correct articles. Alun06:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this is the most complete article in the Internet. Maybe, It could have some spell problems though. It´s worth to be featured anyway.--AndresArce17:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)AndresArce[reply]
I know it has some spell problems. Though, I saw that´s the best article of the Internet also. Give it a chance, please.--AndresArce17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Andres Arce[reply]
It looked like it had been machine translated into English. I have been through it and done an edit. Some of the language is still a bit clunky but I think it now can be read. Malcolma19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians to see how far along this article has come and if it is near feature status and if not what can be done to improve it so it can reach feature status. --Happyman2218:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before I begin: I realize this is not a particularly good article. It has a long way to go. Please focus on the writing of the article; no need to point out the obvious, saying "add citations" or "add references". That's stuff to be saved for later. This article needs to be attacked from the bottom up, and the writing is always the thing that should addressed first. Kindly leave comments. TheImpossibleMan04:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You perhaps have the wrong forum for this type of activity. Please read the first few paragraphs of this page. Thank you. — RJH14:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is pretty dense. Try breaking it down into two or three paragraphs for readability, and reword to eliminate "This article details the..." :-) --NormanEinstein17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. I've broken the intro paragraph in two, but I've restored the image sizes - most viewers are not wikipedia users and unable to adjust their image size preferences. I'll take any suggestions for rewording the intro sentence. I'm stumped personally. michaeltalk12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of research for this article, and it hasn't really changed substantially in the past few weeks (aside from some pictures being added). In short, it has plateaued, and I'd like some suggestions and opinions. --maru (talk) contribs20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Media"? The article is in much need of references to back up the various assertions. The word "stele" is used but is not linked or explained. — RJH14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the rename a shot, and linked stele, since we have a good article on it. Incidentally, how is it not referenced? I thought I'd done a reasonable job with that. --maru (talk) contribs21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have general references. But the convention has been to include inline citations referring to specific pages on specific books. Otherwise everybody would need to look through all of your references to check every detail. The use of inline citations is described on Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks! :) — RJH18:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove the large block from the lead and merge it appropriately in the body of the article; keep the lead for summary information and not detailed accounts. Also remove the section on Koans and put List of koans by Yunmen Wenyan into the See alsos. Try to merge the quote in Quotes with the Teachings section. --NormanEinstein13:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article requires a major rewrite. It is loaded with fancruft galore and needs to be trimmed excessively. Myself and Journalist plan on promoting it to the same status we were able to bring We Belong Together to. I will be conducting several edits within the next few days and would appreciate any suggestions and comments. Note: the "chart performance" section is going to be reduced, so I'd appreciate it if everyone leaving a message did not ask for it to be shortened. —Eternal Equinox | talk13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives a good description of how the photos were taken but perhaps provide more detailed descriptions of what his photos show: both in the Wikipedia:Captions and in the prose in the body (also a more detailed description on the image pages would be useful, too). --maclean2505:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has shaped up very nicely, and I would like some ideas on how this article can be improved, and maybe some day it could become a featured article! --Karrmann
The layout is rather confusing. I think that all of the first several sections should be subsections underneath the History section. In addition, please provide WP:FOOTNOTEs where appropriate. Thanks, AndyZt00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not considered good practice these days to provide 'low grade' links - and (especially) the practice of linking every year number is no longer acceptable. I agree with AndyZ's comments about organisation. We have the year numbers marching down the article with section headings about vehicle models intruding occasionally - I'm not sure what I'd do to change that - but I don't like it the way it is. This fragmentary appearance is made worse by the profusion of small tables (in one case with just one actual entry!). These would be less intrusive to the flow of the article if they were combined together into a single table at the bottom of the main body of text (before the References perhaps). Aside from that, I think this is a great article. Well done! SteveBaker14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your great input. I have given your suggestions considerable thought and have been able to make what I consider to be significant improvments to the article. Thank you and please let me know any more suggestion you might have towards improving this article. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the remainder of the year links for you. Two further things: Firstly, you should convert your references to the inlined <ref> format and use the {cite...} format so you get all the information about the books/websites/whatever nicely organised for you. Then you can tag your text with your references so people can easily see which reference backs up which facts. Secondly, the article is rather light on links throughout. This is more evident now that the year links are gone. SteveBaker04:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded this article a fair bit, but I not sure that it reads well, or would make to to become a GA. I would like help here! - Irishpunktom\talk15:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Good article. I would definitely recommend adding citations throughout the body of the article, so that it's clear where various pieces of information came from. Also, some of the articles reads more like a legend, or a fictionalized truth. In those instances, you could say 'accroding to XYZ, ..." to make the article appear more encyclopedic.
Well, this article has been one of my earliest projects, and I think it has come a very long way from nearly a year ago, although I would like to get opinions on the article. It looks pretty comprehensive, but as always, there's plenty of room for improvement. --Akira12332310:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So am I. I'm starting on the stations (which are mostly blank) first, then probably on some of the other articles, like the LRTA and the SRTS. --Akira12332309:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could. I made the LRT-MRT list, and I have a feeling MRT-5 in the MRT page is actually Southrail. If it is, I'll change the list title to the SRTS one and add in the so-called MRT-5. And I changed "Notes" to "References". --Akira12332310:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that I can conclude that MRT-5 is supposedly Northrail, and I can get Southrail stations through other resources, I might start making the SRTS list. --Akira12332303:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stations list has been removed and replaced with info on the station facilities, amenities and what not, while I added a link to the list of stations. --Akira12332302:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The naming convention states that second and subsequent words should not be capitalized unless you're making an article that incorporates a proper name. I checked with other lists, and the station lists of the Singapore MRT, the Vancouver Skytrain and BART in San Francisco capitalize the word "station", while metro station names in other parts of North America and in Hong Kong and Paris don't implement the word at all (instead, the format <station name>(<system>) is used). Mexico City uses a different system, while others just use the station name without "station", leave station in small caps, or don't wikilink station names at all. It's dependent on whether it's part of the name or not, but I'm presuming it is because since LRT stations are named after streets or other landmarks, the station names need to be distinct. --Akira12332316:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but the LRTA named Central Terminal station for some reason because it's at the center of the line (and because it is a terminal station, although Yehey in its LRT guide called it "Central Terminal Arroceros"). Some websites name Monumento and Baclaran stations as the "North Terminal" and the "South Terminal" respectively, but I know Araneta Center-Cubao, as named by the LRTA (as Cubao on their map), does not incorporate the word "terminal", as is the case with Baclaran and Monumento. --Akira12332301:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain that the voiceover says Paparating na sa Araneta Center-Cubao terminal station, although perhaps the voiceover was just reading a badly-constructed sentence. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The LRTA calls it MRT-2, but it's generally considered part of the LRT. It's even on the official LRT system map (which is the map shown in the main article), unlike MRT-3, which it isn't. --Akira12332315:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably some readers will be confused. Really last: Can you incorporate the info on "Other information" section on other sections? That may seem as trivia. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I actually noticed that most of the information was redundant with previous sections, while others were removed because they didn't fit in any of the existing sections, and one didn't even involve the LRT (rather, it mostly involved the MRT). I also took the time to reorganize, changing the positions of the future expansion (formerly the planned extensions section) and incidents and accidents sections. I also rewrote the lead section of the future expansion section and switched the positions of some of the references to reflect the reorganization of the article. --Akira12332317:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I also added a safety section to merge the incidents and accidents section with safety and security. I also removed the old lines and system network section since it's on the station list. --Akira12332315:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page has the potential to be a good article, but at the moment it is bogged down with certain issues. The main one at the moment is whether or not a "Themes" article should be added to the page or not. Whilst there are certain themes present in the novel, they are not verifiable, and, when written in the article, verge on being POV (see the talk page). Any suggestions on how to resolve this would be appreciated, as well as any suggestions on how to improve the article in general (perhaps referring to other comic book articles?). Thanks Adasta23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro, I would say what it is before where it is. Also if it is often referred to as "Britain" then put that in the parens along with UK, United Kingdom. No sense in having two sentences of the lede deal with this. Kaisershatner14:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it looks pretty good to me. Nice job! The only minor issues I might have would be a rather lengthy introduction; a majority of the article focus being on criticisms, and the inclusion of Theodore Kaczynski as a "militant". But nothing I can't live with. Thanks! :) — RJH15:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been shortened. The focus on criticisms actually provides an opportunity to present transhumanist positions and arguments quite well. The inclusion of the Unabomber as a militant can be justified by not only by the fact that this word is sometimes used synonymously with terrorist but also the coherence and relative influence of his neo-Luddite manifesto, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future --Loremaster18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well on its way to becoming a FA but still needs fine-tuning. Some comments:
Footnotes & references (Footnote numbers are current to the date stamp below but are subject to change):
The "Notes" section does not seem to be formated consistently. Some provide ext.links, some I have to track down in the references.
The sources used for footnote numbers 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18 do not appear in the Reference section.
Footnote 3 misquotes the subject.
Where does TransCentury UPdate's "100,000 viewers" figure come from? I do not see it in the footnote source.
Footnote 17 gives the first name of the author; should be last name.
Footnote 19 is empty - is that where this claim of a quantum leap in the mid-21st C. comes from?
In Spirituality, what is footnote 13 used to reference? The source does not seem to relate to what is written in that paragraph.
History
This reads like the history of an industry or organization, not an intellectual movement. I'd prefer to see more about the origin of the concept and how that changed over time. The Bostrom-A History of Transhumanist Thought reference did a great job at this.
I don't quite get what the first sentence in the second paragraph of History is is saying, can it be expressed more clearly?
What was this about "Alcor Life Extension Foundation"? It is abruptly introduced but not explained. Why did it become a nexus?
That parapraph about the "early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles" is confusing and the footnotes did not help. How does Space Tourism and EZTV Media relate to the activities (conference, convention?) at UCLA?
Also...
The last paragraph/sentence of Spirituality should probably be expanded. The current version simply states that papers have been written on the subject. But, what about them?
Some of the thumbed-images, like "Converging technologies", could use better image captions, please see Wikipedia:Captions.
There is an image of "Digitalism" in the Spirituality section, but the section does not explain what it is or how it relates to transhumanism. --maclean2520:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Maclean, for pointing out all the details that have been bothering me as well. We'll work on this during the next few days. --Loremaster21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maclean:
This article is well on its way to becoming a FA but still needs fine-tuning. Some comments:
Footnotes & references (Footnote numbers are current to the date stamp below but are subject to change):
The "Notes" section does not seem to be formated consistently. Some provide ext.links, some I have to track down in the references.
I've fixed some of this and gave a rationale for leaving some Notes as just links.
The sources used for footnote numbers 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18 do not appear in the Reference section.
See previous comment.
Footnote 3 misquotes the subject.
I fixed this.
Where does TransCentury UPdate's "100,000 viewers" figure come from? I do not see it in the footnote source.
I don't know the answer to this.
Footnote 17 gives the first name of the author; should be last name.
I fixed this.
Footnote 19 is empty - is that where this claim of a quantum leap in the mid-21st C. comes from?
I don't understand what he means by 'empty." It seems ok to me.
In Spirituality, what is footnote 13 used to reference? The source does not seem to relate to what is written in that paragraph.
This should be fixed by someone who knows the Hughes reference.
History
This reads like the history of an industry or organization, not an intellectual movement. I'd prefer to see more about the origin of the concept and how that changed over time. The Bostrom-A History of Transhumanist Thought reference did a great job at this.
This should be fixed by someone familiar with the Bostrom piece.
I don't quite get what the first sentence in the second paragraph of History is is saying, can it be expressed more clearly?
This can be improved by someone familiar with FM-2030's work.
What was this about "Alcor Life Extension Foundation"? It is abruptly introduced but not explained. Why did it become a nexus?
I think this has been fixed; at least Alcor is explained. 'Nexus" seems clear, but maybe should be changed?
That parapraph about the "early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles" is confusing and the footnotes did not help. How does Space Tourism and EZTV Media relate to the activities (conference, convention?) at UCLA?
I rewrote some of this section.
Also...
The last paragraph/sentence of Spirituality should probably be expanded. The current version simply states that papers have been written on the subject. But, what about them?
Fixed by Loremaster.
Some of the thumbed-images, like "Converging technologies", could use better image captions, please see Wikipedia:Captions.
Fixed.
There is an image of "Digitalism" in the Spirituality section, but the section does not explain what it is or how it relates to transhumanism. --
Fixed.
maclean25 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) --StN 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
After months of arduous work, we have nothing to show for it. Seriously folks, I think we've done a good job on this page, it's quite stable, and nearly ready to go for FAC. Your constructive criticism would be appreciated.--Yannick04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead can be safely doubled or tripled in size, at the moment it's pretty light. MoS is rather strict when it comes to bolding: unbold things like 'perfect vacumm' and turn them into ilinks. I'd recommend moving 'Historical interpretation' section to the begining - history often goes first and the current 'Vacuum Quality' section is rather to technical and can scare away people. I'd recommend expanding 'Uses' section - it is quite short now. Keep up the good work :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk21:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:) Yes, I think, the lead section should be expanded and probably reworded, e.g. a reference in it seems to be inappropriate to me. Some of the sections should not just list characteristics with numerical values, but rather be description-style, in particular "Properties" section doesn't look good for me. But as concerns comprehensiveness, I see the article to be very good and helpful. Cmapm13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Techy stuff should go down the bottom, move Vacuum Quality / Measurement / Properties to the end, just before notes. --PopUpPirate22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, all of you. I've working up close with this article for a few months, and had lost track of some of the wider perspective.
I agree with your general comments to expand the lead and move technical details to the end, but I disagree on some of the specifics. I don't really want to move 'Historical interpretation' to the begining because I have concerns about its completeness and accuracy in its current form. The philosophical debates about vacuum were much more complicated than is currently represented. However, maybe 'Uses' and 'Vacuum pumping' would be suitable first sections? I had placed 'Vacuum quality' and 'Measurement' at the top to explain the quantification of partial vacuum early on, but this can probably be done in the expanded lead section.
A minor edit war and arguments on the discussion page indicate that many users have trouble understanding the physical impossibility of perfect vacuum, despite explanations in the article. That's why I put a reference in the lead section. I'm not sure how best to deal with that. Your suggestions are appreciated.
I reviewed the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and did not find it so strict regarding bolding. In fact, it seems to require bolding of alternate article titles such as "perfect vacuum". The legibility section says "Make judicious use of devices such as bulleted lists and bolding," but then it points to an outside article that seems to recommend bolding of the kind used in the Vacuum article.
OK, I just tripled the size of the lead section per your suggestions, and I think this should allow the restructuring you have recommended.--Yannick03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a little bit of cleanup (especially the Multiplayer section, sheesh) and reliable citation. It could also use a little bit more information. I'm sure we could make this top 10 X360 game a FA! (In other words, please review, but more importantly please help!) — Ilyanep(Talk)18:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews section should cite who says what, instead of "some said" and "others say" it would be better to write which magazine/homepage (IGN or what not) represent that view of the game.
References should be much more clear, mentioning where they were published and who the author is.
The gallery section might be spread out through the article, inserted at points where they are mentioned - that would make a much more compelling article.
The external links section should really be weeded out - having a general site like xboxdream.com as a link gives nothing to the article.
Thanks. What I've done so far is re-done a few of the references sections in order to include "IGN:..." instead of just "Call of Duty 2 Review". I dispersed the screenshots in the article, and it's a lot less boring this way. I'm about to weed out the external links section. — Ilyanep(Talk)02:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be expanded. For the size of this article, WP:LEAD suggests no less than 3 paragraphs in the lead. They should concisely summarize the entire article.
"released on April 19, 1994 through " should have a comma after 1994 (see comma (punctuation))
According to WP:CONTEXT and WP:DATE, years without full dates should not be linked (I'll fix that)
"MC Serch, the former member of the group" the should be changed to a
"that Nas did not have recording contract " did not have a recording contract
"A potent treat" Needs period.
'Cultural notes' should be prosified (converted into prose form) or integrated into the rest of the article.
Again with WP:MOS, "Music Sample" should become Music sample. However, I would suggest that the single music sample be moved into the article somewhere; for example see Music of the United States.
Per WP:AWT, "many feared he was in the process of falling off" could use a citation. Outside of that one sentence I don't believe there are any other weasel words.
Is it proper for an article to have a "Trivia" section. I know that by definition, its unencylopediec, and I certainly know a lot would rather have it turned into a prose, but according to WP:ALBUM:
Describe history, trivia, themes (musical or lyrical), a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, reasons for the order of tracks (if any), etc. Also, synthesize the general critical reception of the album, being as detailed as possible.
Please expand the lead to reach WP:LEAD. WP:WIAFA stresses that the lead should include a brief overview of the article.
Add a references section. External links by definition were not used as sources. If they were used as sources, please change the title of the section to "References". They should then be cited according to WP:CITE, possibly using {{Cite web}}.
The article also requires inline citations. Inline citations generally appear in the form of WP:FOOTNOTEs- I would suggest using meta:cite format. When doing this, please cite the information found in the chart under "Champions".
"Countdown in popular culture" is way too short+weak; please either heavily expand or merge w/ another section. BTW, per WP:MOS, the section should simply be renamed "In popular culture".
Ditch the big Winners table, it detracts from the article and a list of names (in this case) is pretty meaningless. Thx! --PopUpPirate23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There truly is intense bias on either side of the said article, which puts All tyhe information in question. So I am placing this for "Peer review". Please read the "Old" posting below...
OLD POSTINGA new company, either a continuation of the oldest film studio in the world, or just named after it, depending who you talk to, appears to have both threatened Wikimedia legally and launched an edit war. If anyone reading this has knowledge of American cinema, your efforts to help source the current article would be appreciated. -- user:zanimum
American Mutoscope and Biograph Company NEW
Now, this is a "New" peer review request my me --Roger the red 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC) to verify and add information to the article stated. I unfortunately will be busy on other things, but welcome editors interested in adding, correcting, or clarifying items in this article.
--Roger the red02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator
(Copied from "Talk" page)
I had asked for assistance from Wikipedia administrator Samuel Wantman to help go by Wikipedia guidelines and edit the article. You have again changed and reverted the article back. Reverting this many times can intitiate a 3RR action. Because of the difficulty I may not be editing on this article for awhile, but working on ohters since there is an obvious bias. This has been forwarded to the administrator.
Roger, Walloon has not done anything unusual that I notice. He removed something with citations that back up his statements. If you think it is unclear that there was a complete sale of assets of the company, you should find a citation that backs up that statement. You should be talking with Walloon on this page to sort this out. It is not the role of administrators to be the arbiters of truth. I have no knowledge about this subject. My view is that I see editors working in good faith to improve this article. What I don't see is your effort to discuss this with Walloon. It is very normal for things to be removed from articles because they are uncited and contradict other information. When this happens, and you think the removal is in error, consider it a challenge to find a source that corroborates the information that was removed. If you find the source return the material with a citation. -- Samuel Wantman01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel, thank you for your time and input. I am concentrating on another article at the moment, but I will do just that. I also will put the article up for peer review. By this, others as well can join in with thier input, which will free me to do other things. Also, what citations and references will be valid, and acceptable to Wikipedia policies? If I find a legitimate, verifiable citation and that is removed as well, let me know the next step is on what to do. I understand you must be neutral, and I appreciate the guidance you have given me.
After consultations with other editors, we have decided to put the article up for peer review. I also neeed to devote more time to other older silent film companies. T
The editor "Walloon" posed a couple of informative references that need to be clarified. the below is part of that posting, along with the questions at hand.
1. "Actually, it is very clear. Not only was there not a "complete sale" of "all the assets", there was no sale of assets — because there were no assets to transfer, as the article says." *1.
1. Please quote the article which states (i.e. "because there were no assets to transfer".
2. "Biograph Studios donated its film collection to the Museum of Modern Art circa 1939.[1] (See: Iris Barry, "Why Wait for Posterity?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1945/46, pp. 131-137.)" **2.
2. Please clarify how Biograph Studios donated the film collection to the Museum of Modern Art in 1939 when the company went out of business in 1928?
2. "The last trade of Biograph stock was reported by The New York Times on December 27, 1928, p. 39."
I invite All editors for thier input and information.
Originally submitted to FAC. Since then has gained headings and lost weasel words. Still needs information such as ratings and previous single. Hyacinth08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong persay. I'm thinking its probably just a little short for FA's liking, but it seems totally complete. I think you might get away with actually including the Boondocks cartoon in the article itself, instead of just linking. -- Zanimum15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](http://ffproject.net/xfer/spiraartmap.jpg){kind=link}
