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.
I recently wrote a duplicate article on this with another spelling, but when someone pointed me here, I found the existing article had more information. I'd like to help the editors who did this work to get it featured so:
At the moment it's kind of small. Any suggestions for expansion?
Any comments on the lead section?
Any comments on the existing body of the text?
What is the preferred length for featured articles?
-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 22:17, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate it for featured. Comments? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:31, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've left a couple of suggestions for changes on your talk page. I'm only a Wikipedia newbie but the article looks excellent to me. Jerry 09:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I notice there is plenty of material about the plane, but the article is marred by a striking lack of info about the shoe. - Nat Krause 09:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent work. Only suggestion I could make would be to create a bibliography. There was a good book by a US News and World Report writer last year and one of the former pilots wrote an informative book as well. FYI, there's a note I made about changing call signs in mid air at Talk:Richard Nixon. PedanticallySpeaking 16:33, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
Written mostly by me, but I'm no historian, esp. when it comes to non-political history. Could somebody fact-check this for me? Thanks, [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 21:47, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Previous COTW - is it ready for featured status? Davodd 20:33, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Lead section really needs to be reworked. It should have 2 or 3 paragraphs summarizing the most important facets of the topic and ease the reader into the subject. That may include defining the subject for those unfamiliar with it. - Taxman 13:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
Last week's COTW is it ready for featured status? Davodd 18:29, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Too much coverage of the specific accomplishments, and not enough on the impact and importance of the space race itself, or at least that is overshadowed too much. For ex. I don't see anything about Star wars and the Soviet objections to it, the general scientific breakthroughs that were made as a result of the space race and how they impacted so many areas of daily life not directly related to space. Also about the space race in the popular conscience is not covered. The tables of achievements are way too distracting from where the focus of this article should be. They are good and should be kept in other articles about space achievements, but not here. - Taxman 14:10, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've been working on this page for a bit, I think it is about "ready". Just looking for general comments, typo/spelling checks and a good read through.
Grinner 11:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
For a non-expert, it reads a little funny, in that it is described as two sports: "rugby union" and "rugby league", which may or may not have anything to do with "rugby football". I think the wording has to be a little more cumbersome, "There are two major associations for the sport of rugby football: the rugby league and the rugby union." or similar. -- Mpolo 12:21, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Well, they are two sports, there hasn't been a single sport of "rugby football" since 1895. I have re-written the intro and I hope things are a bit clearer. Grinner 15:05, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
This is much more understandable. Thanks. Mpolo 15:15, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Somewhere around the Superleague sections needs the mention that media/monetary pressures caused the top tiers of the game to stop playing in winter and start in the summer. Thats a big change -- GWO (A RU man at heart, but I enjoy RL on the telly)
Indeed, I really should have included that! New paragraph added. Grinner 15:43, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Needs to go under POV check, factual check and more... squash 04:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe the Linux kernel type could be called "module-loading monolithic" linking directly to Linux_kernel#Architecture. The prices should specify if that's street or manufacturer's suggested retail price. SUSE should probably mention the possibility of a support package. Might be worth a footnote that Fedora can be set up for NTFS support, but that it is considered experimental. (Is it not experimental on SUSE?) -- Mpolo 08:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
You can help by making your suggested changes on the article :-) squash 02:12, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
The price section makes it too US-centric. There must be a better way of doing that! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can't really think of a better way either which doesn't compomise the information... squash 02:12, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
The row titled "Target audience" seems problematic. Paul August 14:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'll agree with you on that one, but there is no way to make is sound less problematic... squash 02:12, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Not sure whether this is the right place to announce this (please advise). There is a vote in progress on Talk:Human concerning the placement of the taxonomy box, and the identity of Human and Homo Sapiens. dab 16:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Aussies of Wikipedia have collaborated together to raise the quality of this article about a very important Australian event. Would any interested parties like to review and comment? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've just gone over this, added categories and standardized the old-fashioned image markup, and made some minor expansions. Wondering if anyone has anything significant to add. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've expanded this article, but it needs to be checked over by someone with expertise in chemistry. Also, the examples given need to be double-checked for accuracy. -- FirstPrinciples 06:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Just need another set of eyes to look over the article for clarity and errors. --BrandonR 04:33, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Tightened up text. Question....in one paragraph you mention that the engines were converted to oil and in the next paragraph you mention that they park kept the integrity of the steam engines. Which is it?
Needs fact-checking, especially the history section. Was cardboard invented to soak up sweat in hats? I don't know, that's why I'm asking here! Rhobite 02:12, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
The material in this article is less clear and less complete than it should be. Somebody familiar with Japanese history and the Japanese language should review it to make sure it is accurate. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 12:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mostly edited by myself. Can anyone see any inaccuracies or incomplete infomation? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 25 Sep 20
04 (UTC)
Well the image copyrights are worrisome. The image page of the first image says: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that we abide by their terms." What are their conditions? But at least that one is with permission. The others are fair use and quite troubling. Also, the discography is very disrupting to the prose, and to be a featured article would have to be moved to a separate article and the prose expanded. - Taxman 03:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
The images are all taken from the Universal website, which I got copyright permission for. I still have the terms and agreements, which I can place on the site. Incidently, only one of the images is fair use. I have gathered copyright permission for the rest of the images! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well make sure to include those terms in each image pages description section. The terms may or may not be compatible with a GFDL encyclopedia, no matter how pretty she is. - Taxman 15:54, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Started and edited mostly by myself. Biography of one of the richest men on the planet and owner of Formula One. I'd like to make it a featured article. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 23:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is a merge of white noise and the previous page on signal whitening. Both pages were subtly wrong before the merge, and the whole mess needs a thorough review, and possibly a rewrite. -- The Anome 08:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pokemon articles seem to be about nonfictional animals
Beedrill, Butterfree - these articles have nothing in the first paragraph that states they are fictional. This seems to me like "Sherlock Holmes was one of the world's greatest detectives, and may have killed the arch-fiend Moriarty"... I think the whole pokemon constellation needs a look with this in mind. I'm not that sure what a pokemon IS, but it isn't a real thing...66.245.208.146 04:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well I fixed those two. Just simply note in the intro that they are fictional characters. The fans of these things won't appreciate that, but they have to reallize that not saying they are fictional first thing is being misleading. You don't need peer review for these, just go fix them. Since this listing is not what this page is for, I'll remove this to Wikipedia:Peer review (to be deleted) in a couple days, or you can first. - Taxman 17:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Any suggestions? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
A lot of good work. Very close to a featured article in my opinion. Nominating it there is likely to get objections from people that don't want another political article on the main page and don't understand that featured and on the main page are two separate things. - Taxman 14:52, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
A few specific items I noticed
Overall it faces a difficulty of covering a bit too much of the less important topic. For example the campaigning for congress section is very detailed considering he lost and in comparison to his successful bids for Lt Gov. and Senate getting only a few sentances. The campaigning for congress section is also difficult to undersand and follow for anyone not already familiar with the details. Maybe it should be in news style to give the important details up front.
Way too many one sentence paragraphs.
Sponsorship of legislation section is only one sentence. It should be merged somewhere else or expanded a bit.
The committee assignments listing could stand be moved out, perhaps to another sub article such as politics of John Kerry or similar.
Unlikely to get through WP:FAC on the simple objection that it's an edit war battleground. Same reason George W. Bush wouldn't get through - David Gerard 15:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was surprised nobody had done any of these fictional mecha as a wiki page already. I did most of the information, but I would like a)for others to help contribute to the information on each machine and b)to make sure that there are multiple viewpoints expressed. One thing to ask - if you do add info on one of the units that does not have it already, please add the vitals of the units, like I did on the first ones. AngelHedgie 22:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I didn't do anything with this article, but I did fix the lead sentence of Striker pack... - Ta bu shi da yu 12:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article contains a number of shaky explanations, which might not even be correct, particulary in Water#The ideal properties for life. Large amounts of the article may be improved by better writing, and overall it doesn't seem to flow as well as it should. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 03:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't flow as well as it could, eh? That's a bit of a worry about an article about water... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Much better, but still needs improvement:
We still need a references section for where you are getting your information from. Also, there is unattributed information in this article that needs to be clarified.
"Experts predict more trouble ahead because of the world's growing population, increasing contamination through pollution and global warming." Which experts?
"40% of the world's inhabitants currently have insufficient fresh water for minimal hygiene. More than 2.2 million people died in 2000 from diseases related to the consumption of contaminated water or drought." Where are you getting this information from?
This article still has too many short sentences that should probably made into longer paragraphs. On this article I'm not that fussed about this point, but if it could be resolved it would be great.
No information about large bodies of water like lakes, oceans, etc. Just a brief overview with a picture of something like waves would be fine.
What about things that live in water? Surely that's important!
No mention of the recreational use of water. Again this is important.
Suggestion: what about the dangers of water? Again an important aspect of this substance.
What about things like water on other planets? Again, an important aspect of our understanding of water.
I agree with your comments, and I have put them on the to-do list of water. Pcarbonn 11:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(Duplicate listing, moving up)
This article is a potential candidate for Featured Article, and I'm sure you'll learn a few things while reading it. Please have a final check before we submit it to FAC.
Pcarbonn 20:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused with the diagram. What does it mean? Could you add more information onto the actual image itself? Could we also fix up the 1 sentence paragraphs? Some of the paragraphs could be fleshed out, say for instance "The Mpemba effect is the surprising phenomenon whereby hot water can, under certain conditions, freeze faster than cold, even though it must pass the lower temperature on the way to freezing." - give a bit more info (not the entire article it references, just some more info to make it more complete). Also, the history seems tacked on as an afterthought. I mean, there's water->History->Mythology and water->Water in practice->Water in religion... get my drift? Otherwise, this is a really well researched, well-written article! I would be happy to support it if you can sort out these things (especially a structural organisation). - Ta bu shi da yu 15:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This long article covers the race fairly well, but I think the lead section could be trimmed/better organized, and the rest of the article could use some tightening up. Gentgeen 00:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's a lot of good info here, but it's lacking structure and balance. Just a few things:
Lead section is way to long.
Part about the movie should be spun off.
Pictures are lacking. At least one action photo, and a map of the circuit would be needed, I think. A "Le Mans start" picture would also be great.
The "Le Mans start" is certainly not so important that it should be the first topic dealt with.
The history is very unbalanced. We get the top 10 for 2002 and long descriptions for various years, but the 1920s are dealt with in a single sentence. My suggestion would be to move very long descriptions to separate articles ("1968 24 hours of Le Mans" or so), and keep a global story here. Of course certain races need to get more attention than others, but keep it brief.
The list of winners is quite long, you may consider moving it to a separate "List of" article. I any case I would convert to a table. This looks better and allows you to search easily for marques and drivers.
This article was the subject of a pretty vicious edit war earlier this year. A couple months ago, it was selected for improvement by Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and was much altered as a result. Before trying for FA status, I'd like some neuroscientists, MDs, psychologists, computer scientists, philosophers, and other interested Wikipedians to give it a look-over for completeness and fact-checking. Sayeth 16:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people to comment on the body of the article - just thought I'd note that I thought the web site linked to in the first external link - the human brain, a learning tool is a bit weak. I'll let you know if I can find anything better Jerry cornelius 15:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed the first link to one of my favorite sites with lots of great info on the brain. Sayeth 02:46, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Seems shaky. Is this really considered a special form of medical practice? If so, this needs work. If not, this needs deletion. - KeithTyler 20:39, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
My wife is a doctor, and yes, all the information in the article is essentially correct. I'm not sure there is much more to say about it but what is there already. And that's ok for this topic in my opinion. Not every article needs to be 14 printed pages. But again, this is not the best place for this listing. Requests for expansion may be better if that is what you want. I guess I'll have to come up with a better way to explain the aim of this page. - Taxman 13:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I added some stuff. Legitimate article, probably could use redirect from hospitalist. Alteripse 14:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is my first new article of any substance (though I recgnoize it is not very substantial). It could really use some people's thoughtful suggestions. Be gentle; I'm a relative newbie. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 21:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea! I think the best things you could do would be to add a sentence to each entry explaining how and why it was used, preferably with a reference. I've added an entry on E$$o as an example. You could probably also add a link from at least most of the pages you've linked to. --G Rutter 19:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thinking of submitting this as a featured article. The only part I can think definately requires some expansion is the "breastfeeding in public" section especially the laws, adding information about countries other than the US and the UK. Would appreciate people checking it over and any comments anyone has on the talk/my talk. violet/riga(t) 09:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article is pretty much feature quality--up until around World War II. The sections on the postwar years need significant expansion; as it is, the gist of it is, "He founded Disneyland then died." Once that's taken care of, this'll be an easy Featured Article candidate--it's really well-written and detailed, one of those articles almost anyone could learn something from Szyslak 09:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Needs sources with ISBN reference. Should be rather easy to find. Davodd 06:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
This topic is about to get a lot of attention with the release next week of a live version and an upcoming cable special. The article is pretty good right now; if somebody had a legal picture of the album cover (hint, hint) and somebody else did a good copyedit scrub I think it'd be ready to go to FAC. Jgm (originally requested) 23:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've recently made some expansions to this article detailing the complex insertion and deletion operations. It'd be helpful if someone who knows about red-black trees could help check for accuracy, and if other people could help with readability, clarity, and so on. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've only had a chance to start looking at this article; I haven't combed through to check the individual sections for accuracy. I think it looks like a good reference, but that standing alone, the article is more appropriate to an algorithms book than an encyclopedia. The article started out very sharply; there were a few links to simpler topics, but no real explanations of background material, the motivation for creating red-black trees, why we are making the decisions we're making, or where red-black trees are used.
I tend to think that articles like this should start off with nontechnical material, and become more technical as the articles go on. A beginning section might want to expand on why red-black trees are important (they're used in filesystems, they're efficient at certain types of operations, etc.). Since the article is very technical, I think that information should go before a description of "what they are". The second section might loosely cover technical background material (with copious links). After that, the article could go into an intuitive description of red-black trees, and why they're more efficient. Lastly, you go into the algorithmic details.
With an article structured like that, if someone without enough technical background to understand the page comes across it, they can still gain something before they get lost. I really think that Wikipedia, since it's aimed somewhat at a general audience, gives us a great opportunity to communicate our intuitive understandings of technical terms, and move away some from the style of current textbooks (where you define something, and then explain what it is).
Anyway, I know I'm pretty verbose. I added a short "Background" section (I forgot to log in at the time, I'm afraid), and I'd be happy to give more specific comments, or discuss things, if you're interested. Good luck with this article, and have fun! -- Creidieki 06:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know this might sound silly, in the insertions bit could you illustrate case 1 and case 2 with an diagram, like you've done for case 3? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This needs significant NPOVing (still). I've done quite a bit and made known why I've done all my edits in the talk page. Anyone want to assist here? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It isn't looking bad at this point, but I'd like to see it get up to FA standard. Any feedback/assistance would be appreciated. Come on Australia, help us get another article featured. Ambi 14:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good article, could do with a lot more information on past presenters. Merrick and Rosso come to mind. They were a cack! Out of interest, are you affiliated with the station at all? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wish. ;) I didn't write this, either. I was just discussing it with User:Chuq earlier, and decided I'd post it here in order to gain some feedback, so we can get it up to scratch. Is there anything you could add? Merrick and Rosso were a bit before my time. Ambi 15:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Before your time? Say what? They were only on a few years ago before moving to Nova... to be honest I don't have too much I can contribute. The only thing about Merrick & Rosso is that they once accidently switched off the entire radio station when Merrick was mucking about with the studio equipment. It was amusing mainly because they didn't actually switch off the 'mikes, and the entire nation heard the producer running around swearing at them while he tried to work out why they weren't on the air. Apart from that, they also produced a "best of" compilation called choice cuts... that had me in stitches! Sorry that I can't help further. Maybe a general alert to JJJ listeners might help. Maybe you could get Triple J to help you out! They're a pretty dynamic station so they might be able to help. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that the presenters could do with their own sub-stub articles. There is additional information I could add about some of them but there isn't really space. It would shorten the Triple J article, to make more space for info about the station itself. Ideally, we would get the article featured on the front page and enter that as a Beat the Drum entry! More pictures would also be good - I have contacted Triple J about using pics from their site, am waiting to hear back... -- Chuq 00:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone out there in Wikiland know anything about this guy? I've read some of his books, but I don't think I can help things more than what you already see. -Litefantastic 14:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, requests for expansion should go on that page to help make the various wikipedia projects more useful. This page is for bringing mostly written articles up to featured article standards. Thank you - Taxman 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but the Wallace page says outright that White was a Soviet spy, while the thrust of the White page is that he was not even a Communist. Can anybody with knowledge of this stuff look them over? johnk 05:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been working on creating good articles for all the 9/11 hijackers (and related persons). How can it be improved? Quadell(talk) 03:11, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I basically wrote this as a stub - I could use the insight of another electronics engineer with power electronics experience, especially to expand on protection schemes. Please edit it as you see fit!
It would be helpful if there were some more information about the book before the spoiler part; perhaps some of the information from the later sections which indicate notability, give information on the adaptations, etc. could be moved up. I generally stop reading as soon as I get to the spoiler part, especially since the warning seemed to cover so much. If you could have a vague plot outline and other nonspoiler information, and then put the spoilerful plot summary at the end, I think that would be more useful. Also, "to" should not be capitalized in the page title. -- Creidieki 17:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to get this up to FA level, if that's possible (not sure if the topic is deep enough). Would love suggustions on style/organizing, more information to add, or anything else. Lyellin 18:09, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
This looks like a very interesting building! How does it compare to the rest of the campus, and to the city? I assume a "nationality room" is an otherwise ordinary room decorated in some way that suggests a particular culture; is that true? Perhaps a picture would help here. AlexG 22:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
DOH! I forgot to do the write up for that section. I'll get on that soon. Thanks! Lyellin 13:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Just added a bunch of information about the room project/process- hopefully that will improve it some. Lyellin 17:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
To throw in my two cents, I can't help wondering what the tallest building is. Just so the comparison can be made. I'd say that, considering everything from fractals to foreskins have been FA, this is well within the realm of possibility. Not there yet, though... Also, try adding some brief blurbs about each of the rooms. -Litefantastic 14:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you think that might get it to be too long? Lyellin 06:38, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be too long; whenever somebody says something is the "second-largest", the immediate reaction is to wonder what beats it. This article is nowhere near too long. My other point would be that reading the article, I don't really know what goes on in the other 39 stories. Could you elaborate? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 06:48, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I meant with a blurb about each of the 26 rooms :-). I added in the floor information- see if that helps. I'm still looking for the name of the other building. It's in Russia.... Lyellin 17:18, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) I just added in the info regarding the tallest building. Lyellin 17:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
A few comments -- Please add a source on the statement that the philosophy department is "one of the top three in the world" (either an external link or a link to a Wiki article would be fine). I'd also be interested to see a source on the usage of Floors 37-42 (I'm a CMU student, and I didn't know what those floors were for). Also, what are the "proposed rooms" -- have those still not been finished? Were they once proposed and then discarded?
The article needs a few references -- where are you getting this information? I'm sure the University of Pittsburgh library has a few books about this; even if you don't have time to read through them, you could email a librarian to ask for titles, etc.
The list of nationality rooms is useful; I'd like to see more information about how the building is used, though. Statistics on numbers of classrooms, square footage. I'm told that the astronomy club has antennas/telescopes/etc. on the top? The University of Pittsburgh uses the Cathedral for a lot of its official stuff (postcards, etc.; pretty much any picture of campus). Has the building ever been used for anything besides academics (giant parties, important events)? Has it ever appeared in any movies? Have there been any large pranks involving it? Has there ever been a suicide?
Anyway, I think there's a lot of stuff here to make an article on. I made a few changes, mostly copyediting. Let me know if you'd like me to take a look at it again at some point. Have fun! -- Creidieki 05:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wrote this article, but English isn't my mother tongue, so please review style, spelling, grammar. Needs also more on the reception of the painting and its significance in the history of modern art. Other suggestions are welcome too. - Karl Stas 11:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Same goes for the sister article Olympia. Karl Stas 19:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could someone look into this? I'm concerned about the section Pokémon#Controversy.
The controversy section is probably the most compelling part of the article for the non-Pokemon enthusiast. That part could use one of the following: an image of the Pokemon swastika card and external refereces to the anti-Muslim and Satanic claims. Right now is uses semi-weasel language ("some"). Davodd 11:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I think I read an article that a Muslim leader somewhere in East Asia (Indonesia?) throw out the accusation of Pokemon being an evil influence. I think it is fair to mention this, of course I have to first find the article itself. Revth 05:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As long as the facts mentioned can be backed up, I don't see any problems with this section. Mgm 19:23, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've created this article, drawing info from others and adding as much as I can think of. Would appreciate others taking a look, especially if they're looking at the Twin / Multiple birth article as listed below. violet/riga(t) 18:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've reworked the twin article adding lots of things and bringing in information from identical twin (which I now think should just be a redirect). It may even be worth merging twin into multiple birth. I think this could work its way towards being a featured article but I'm pretty much out of things I can think of adding. Would appreciate any comments, additions or changes. violet/riga(t) 18:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to twin (as you will have seen). Although twin is a special case of multiple birth, I think the two articles can sensibly be kept separate. -- ALoan(Talk) 16:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I noticed - thanks! My reasoning for placing twin into multiple birth was such that there may well be a large section of information duplicated between the two articles. The latter is quite small compared and perhaps just needs more work itself. violet/riga(t) 16:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I put together a brief article on the Waved Albatross, a breed that nests in the Galapagos Islands. I tried to get the scientific information correct, but could somebody double-check it? Thank you. — RJH 18:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've just written a small article on Griko, the Greek language spoken in the Magna Graecia region. Anyone who is interested may contribute to this by adding linguistic, ethnographic, or other information. Thank you in advance.
Was reading through this article and noticed it is not featured. It is a well writen article covering many aspects of the painting - history, sitter, the aesthetics. Even if it is not quite feature-worthy yet, please add constructive criticism to help make it such. --[[User:OldakQuill|OldakQuill]] 10:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review; there's just too many things that need work. I've noted a few of them on the article's talk page, and have started to try and fix them. I agree that such an important painting deserves a featured article, but it's not there yet. • Benc • 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. It needs some fairly significant copy editing and structuring. Eudyptes 22:15 30 Aug 2004 UTC
I have added a couple of restructuring suggestions to the todo on the talk page. I may come back and implement these is time allows. Filiocht 08:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I did a total rewrite on this a month ago, and think I did a fairly decent job - and I think the others who have helped afterwards have too. Still, I would like to bring it up to the standard of a Featured Atricle - so all the attention you could give it would be good I think. Perhaps someone could find some non-copyrighted images to place in the article as well, all the images I've found so far has been copyrighted and my attemts to contact the owners has not meet with success. Some more info on the danish and american patterns would be good as well, and perhaps a few words on it's use in the Werhmacht during WWII if someone knows anything. WegianWarrior 07:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The usual, Beatles song article, have expanded it... Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well written and excellent information about the origin and development of the song. Maybe too much, because not much else is covered. Especially how did it do in the charts/sales? What about this ban? Was it permanent? Did it impact anything? How was it famous? Similar reactions in the US or elsewhere? - Taxman 04:12, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
The charts in those days did not include individual songs unless they were released on singles. I've added more on the ban. (It took me ages to find anyone that said anything about the ban beyond just that "the BBC banned it, how could they?" or for the satanic conspiracy theorists, "the BBC banned it, see, the Beatles were evil.") Unfortunately the ban's become so famous that it's drowned out other items of interest about the song — I can't find anything related to the American public's response. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The ban remains in place until today" oh yeh? True it hasn't played on Radio One, but it has been played (partially at least) on BBC radio three, specifically on an arts program in the early 70s evaluating the musical abilities of the Beatles.
Ogg 12:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's the exact problem I'm having. People focused too much on the ban, and never mention when it was lifted. I'll need to ask some Beatle-maniacs about this. Johnleemk | Talk 07:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are two minor problems. The first is that there's some confusion about the length of the final chord; Martin mentions 15 bars, while a quote from McCartney says 24 bars. As both are direct quotes, one deserves a [sic], to indicate a mistake that is being quoted in context. The second is that a number of elements are being quoted as occuring "at the end of the song", and it may be helpful to include what sequence they actually occur in, which I recall as being in the following order:
The end of the third verse, with "four thousand holes", etc., concluding with "I'd love to turn you on..."
The second orchestral crescendo, including Mal Evans counting the measures
The E Maj piano chord, which continues for over 30 seconds and includes a squeaky chair and the air conditioner hum
About two seconds' worth of a dog whistle
The sped-up chatter in the runout groove
Also, we may wish to check sources as to how the Beatles kept that final chord going. Boosting the gain was one way, but there's a semi-famous photograph of George Harrison underneath a grand piano manipulating it somehow...perhaps inserting the mic directly into the piano itself. All my sources are at home, so I'll have to check later. - Beatlemaniac Scooter 19:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, William J. Dowlding's Beatlesongs gives nothing for the last chord other than the engineer pushing down the input faders at the moment of impact. However, I got a date for the Tara Browne crash, so I'll put that in. - Scooter 04:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article clarifies which part comes after the other, but not at the same time. The elements are all addressed in the order they appear anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
George Harrison had recently bought the sitar from Ray Man, Ethnic Music Instruments, in Covent Garden. The company still exists, but is now in Chalk Farm. The song has a strong Bob Dylan influence on it. The Beatles had been listening to "Blonde on Blonde"
Ogg 11:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am nominating this for AotW in the hopes that we can get it ready in time for the (likely) expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban on September 13th. It would be great to have it as FA for that day. It's sort of o.k., now, but it isn't great. Jimbo Wales 00:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't fit normal guidelines, but clearly needs alot of work, and with His Lairdship Jimbo's support seems like a shoe-in. Here's hoping the assault weapons ban goes out w a bang, Sam [Spade] 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear: I fear this is in the same category as Alan Keyes (removed the other day) in that Wikipedia:Peer Review it is more approraite place for it. -- ALoan(Talk) 09:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've started some work on the article. It turns out it had the wrong definition for the ban this whole time! AWB banned on weapons with TWO or more characteristics, not one like the article said, which is a big difference. Wodan 17:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd have to agree with ALoan - per the guidlines of this page, this should go to peer review. - Taxman 19:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not a candidate for COTW, its already too substantial. —siroχo 19:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
In the spirit of "we're all equal" this nomination should be deleted from here and moved to peer review. This article is in no way a stub. Davodd 18:19, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Well the navigation box and the article text implies that the assault weapons ban is a part of the act you reference. That should mean they are different and likely should not be merged. The two articles do mention different dates which I'm not sure which is correct. It does also have horrid POV problems, with many many comments against the ban, some with no attribution at all. - Taxman 03:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm considering working this into a featured article. What more does it need, besides references and a picture or two? Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's a little on the brief side. It could use more detail on the various internecine maneuverings of the 70s and 80s. I've been meaning to write about this and perhaps I will increase its relative priority on my to-do list. - Nat Krause 12:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I originally wrote this article but would like to ask for help from professionals.
I would appreciate any psycologist/psychiatrist, etc. to edit or improve or even totally rewrite the article( with insights , phsycological comments, etc). I feel that this article and the book( Waking the Tiger) is very relevant. Thanks. --Jondel 01:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is the first paragraph of Copyleft sufficently NPOV? In particular, should the use of the phrase 'intellectual property regime' be replaced by 'intellectual property law'? 'Regime' is generally but not always perjorative, but I don't believe that is the case when speaking of a body of law. Anybody know if there's a specific legal meaning? Google reveals the phrase 'intellectual property regime' seems to be used in a neutral sense, for example in the Australian Government's announcement of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Regardless, in the context of the sentence, which is to describe the point of copyleft, any of these sorts of laws are frowned upon. Does this make it ok? On the third hand, what I really mean by the phrase is 'intellectual property body of law' and I believe this really is the established meaning of the phrase 'intellectual property regime', which reads better. I haven't had to deal with NPOV before so it seems safest to ask. (As far as the rest of the article goes, I don't know that it's ready for peer review.) -- kop 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the very term intellectual property its self is POV and is in many ways quite undefined. It's better to specify what you mean; e.g. say copyright, trademark or patent, which are properly defined terms. Intellectual Property regime, is not POV in the sense that you worry about, however; it's standard usage by people who talk about "intellectual property". Mozzerati 21:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
Um, the first sentence doesn't make any sense anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can add requests unilaterally or if it should be discussed with other editors first, but I think this article could use some outside eyes. Recently, a college prof made some complaints on the talk page, and in response, the article has more than doubled in size in about a month, with only two major editors in that time. Some possible problems are that it may be just too big, and may be too repetitive, both internally and with the general crusade article. Thanks! Adam Bishop 23:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If it's too big, then move parts of the article into seperate articles. The siege of antioch and battle of jerusalem should both be seperate articles. The material should go progressivly from broad view to detail. So the Original crusade article will have high-level overview, the First Crusade article will have enough detail to tell the story in summary, and individual parts then in seperate articles. There will be overlap between the articles, that is expected and normal as you zoom in from high-level to detail level.Stbalbach 00:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The history description in the section "Unemployment" seems to rest on the Phillips_curve / NAIRU theory of a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Economics not being my specialist field, I still feel this being something of a contested issue. Could someone take a look at the section and possibly de-POV it? Alarm 13:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that was pretty egregious. I made an attempt at a fix. Even Phillips didn't posit such a strong causal relationship. What the section really lacks is what was done, if anything, to attempt to reach the employment goals. And was the action the real thing that caused the unemployment to go down? The section reads like an essay without having any sources cited. - Taxman 03:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Yet another Beatles song article rewrite. Comments? Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Made a couple of small copy edits. Just wonder if the story about the sixth chord doesn't belong in the Working in the studio section? Otherwise a really good read. Thanks. Bmills 12:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
needs French speaker to correctly pluralise the term, it is currently pluralised as agents provocateurs
also some examples from the war protest movements in the late 20th century?Pedant 16:32, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
It's also the name of a reasonably well-known company specialising in ladies' undergarments here in the UK, but I'm not sure that warrants a mention in the article... Angmering 00:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The plural form here is quite correct. In the future, for short passages, I advise you to consult Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators and ask the members. ;) --Liberlogos 08:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can somebody else help us decide the NPOVness of the article, and comment on other areas that need sprucing up? Johnleemk | Talk 10:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
.gif?lang=en){kind=small}
