This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Allen3(talk | contribs) at 10:12, 26 July 2006(→Requests: Archive of peer review requests over one month old). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:12, 26 July 2006 by Allen3(talk | contribs)(→Requests: Archive of peer review requests over one month old)
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.
Following on from albatross, another family of seabirds I think can reach FA status. Hopefully you'll find it informative well referenced and illustarted, and hopefully you'll find everything that's wrong with it now so I can correct it before FAC. Just a word of warning; for reasons that are too complicated to go into yet actually make perfect sense, I can only access the internet between 800-1030 in the evening Hawaiian time. I will reply to comments, but allow for the time lag. Thanks. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk08:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some initial comments/questions from me. More to come on a second read-through no doubt:
General comments
I'd like to see lots more inline references for specific facts
Any general topic headings which we included in the Albatross article which aren't covered here?
Yes, culture. Quite frankly I'm hard pressed to find any examples of procellariids in a cultural context. They just don't grab people the way albatrosses or penguins or puffins do. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Paragraph 1 - Procellaridae is (or perhaps even better comprises, although then we'd have two uses of comprise), but not are - grammatical hobbyhorse of mine, sorry
Paragraph 1 - do all members of the family fall into one of those four subgroups?
Yes no maybe. Long answer - probably, the four group thing kind of works but is a human way of understanding something more complex. There is some controversy about whether some species belong where. Pseudobulweria behaves like a gadfly petrel, for example, but is probably closer to the shearwaters genetically. This could be made clearer in the section on taxonomy, I conceed, but probably does not need to be dealt with in the intro. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 2 - can we back up the statement about the family being the most diverse?
I was refering to the diversity in lifestyles, large carrion eaters and small filter feeders and ariel snatchers and deep divers. Compared to the three other families this is much more diverse. I have no idea how you'd cite that. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 2 - are the characterising characteristics diagnostic of this family?
Gah. Probably - though as I said in the talk page that section is left over from he original article that I started on. Interestingly Schrieber and Burger describe the Procellariidae as 'Being distinguished from the other three families by lacking their charecteristics', a supremeley helpful statement. ;P Sabine's Sunbirdtalk06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 2 - Septum links to a disambig page
fixed
Paragraph 2 - "all species lay a single egg" ...? Recipe for extinction if you ask me :-)
fixed
Paragraph 2 - exceptionally long for all procedllarids compared with?
clarified
Paragraph 3 - repeat use of exceptionally too soon? also this sentence could be punctuated better
reworded
Paragraph 3 - species repeat use - and can we do better than "introduced species" - how about introudced mammals or are we not just talking mammals here?
Paragraph 1 - Is there universal agreeement on S&A's findings on origins? If so great, but what about some historical perspective; if not, then let's see alternative views
no, of course not. Perhaps the page on Procellariformes is the best place for a discussion on the various theories and timelines. The order of the split is backed up, however, by Nunn and Stanley's 1998 paper, which I used to restructure the taxonomy section. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 1 - How close in time were the four family splits - procellarids split most recently but was that 29.9 MYA or ... ?
Paragraph 6 - don't the comments about the subgroups of Pterodroma belong in the gadfly petrel paragraph, and can we expand them?
I can probably expand them but I was presenting all the newer developments in the last paragraph. I'd appreciate thoughts on how to restructure the whole of this section if it can be done better. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) - UPDATE - Changed my mind and agree with you - done. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 6 - the last sentence would fit well in the lead IMO
Morphology & flight
What's a "patchy area of prey"?
clarified
the soaring types can be wikilinked I think?
clarified
is it just the giant petrels that have the shoulder lock?
yes, hopefully clarified
Distribution and range
od -> of
fixed
undertake transequatorial WHAT
fixed
expermiments typo
fixed
have there been multiple disp experiments - which other species?
Possibly, I'll have to hunt and look.
Diet
sentences containing "In conjunction with" anmd "Wedge-tailed Shear" don't quite read right to me
here we say only three of the six prions have lamellae - didn't it say all above?
strictly speaking "BP" shouldn't be used in WP articles, even though I dislike the alternatives
huh? Okay, I changed it to years ago (even though it sounds like a story now)
I need to explain this in a bit more detail, and possibly backtrack. Basically, in a guideline somewhere (so I'm told) it says that all dates should be absolute not relative, so that if an article isn't edited for 100 years, it's still accurate. I think this is mainly intended as a guideline for avoiding things like "recently", "in the last month" etc. so maybe BP is OK, in fact. I'll try to track down the exact page and see what it actually says! SP-KP08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a preference for "become extinct" over "go extinct" as I think it reads better - could be just me though
I think I prefer gone extinct myself.
shearwtaer typo
fixed
threats
what does "ecologically naive" mean?
", or , more commonly" - rogue space
fixed
easily stage shoul say early stage
fixed
Species
Puting the list elsewhere is good given the length of it but can we put any summarising facts in this section?
Okay, I've fixed most everything. A few points need thinking about (I need to work out what to do), and I'd suggest that other people help with where my ability to insert commas falls down. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have added some more citations and clarified some more things. In particular I have beaten the taxonomy section with a hose and added a rough cladogram to try and show where the genera fall in modern thinking. Hopefully this has imporved matters some. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk07:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have dealt with the points raised, although two instances of recently have been left in as they refer to longer periods of time ('the storm petrels split, and more recently the procellariids') which won't date. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk08:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a lot of work on this article over the past few weeks, taking it from a monolithic 80KB [1], spliting it into 6 sub-articles by time period, and practically rewriting the main article into a relatively lean 37KB. I'd like this peer review to just focus on the main History of the Philippines article, and what it needs to meet FA criteria. If this peer review turns out nicely I would really like to take the article all the way to FA status. :) Coffee06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick skim revealed a couple of problems from my perspective:
There are duplicate links to the same article. Cebu, for example, and both Spain and Spanish link to Spain in the same paragraph. There are many more examples. The style guide prefers linking only once, typically the first appearance in the article.
New Spain is noted as Mexico the second time it appears; shouldn't the note be with the first occurance? And this is another example of duplicate linking.
Can you put at least an introductory paragraph at the beginning of "American colonial period (1898-1946)" so that the first subcategory, "Philippine-American War" doesn't follow immediately? It flows better that way.
I prefer the end sections of See also / Notes / References / Further reading / External links, which is consistent with most articles. Most of your "General references" appear to be external links and none seem to be cited in the notes section, so perhaps it more accurately a "Further reading" section. Using another encyclopedia for a reference doesn't seem optimal to me; I would prefer to see a stronger source. I'm not sure how FAC reviewers will respond to these end section issues.
Thank you very much for the comments. I've fixed points #1, 2 and 3 that you mentioned. As for #4... all of those links were used as references, and I'm working on converting all of them to footnotes so perhaps the "General references" part could later be done away with. Coffee16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of the automated suggestions: (1) Wikilink dates, (2) headings don't start with "The", (3) weasel words, (4) watch for redundancies, and (5) copyedit. I've taken care of #1 and #2. All the obvious weasel words have citations (and if any others remain, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out). As for #4 and #5... I've looked over the article many times, so I guess I've done what I can do. Coffee16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for peer review for the express purpose of making it good enough to nominate for featured status. Specifically, I think the article could be better organized (e.g. smaller sections) and perhaps other general information could be added to round it out. Any kind of comments on style, organization, or ideas to make it "better" would be much appreciated. Thanks! Andrewski23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't really go into the steps, just why they're well known as the Rocky steps and things related to that. When were they built? Who decided to put large steps there and why? Information like that. I imagine there is at least one book that goes into the history of the museum. The steps might have an alternate name also, they weren't known as Rocky steps before Rocky. More about the controversy with the Rocky statue, the effort to bring it back and the descision to put it near the base of the steps can be added. I bet there have been studies about tourism to the steps also. One final note, references should be in a proper format. Good luck. Medvedenko20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears biased against social promotion. Evidence of this is the sentence "which are very important before entering the high school" in the lead and the placement of "Arguments against social promotion" before "Arguments for social promotion". You might also consider removing "not necessarily valid". Where you say social promotion was stopped you need to explain how was it stopped. Was there a bill introduced in New York City, standardized tests that needed to be passed to move to the next grade, etc. You need to provide evidence that the practice is being used at elementary and middle school level. You need to explain if it varies from one school/school board to the next. More discussion of research in the area or related to the area would also benefit the article. Finally, inline citations would be really useful in an article like this. Cedars03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Thich Nhat Hanh has been evolving slowly over time, and I would like to see it gain featured article status. I've been working on references for the article to include sources outside of "official" or "friends of TNH" sites to make it more reliable. At this point, I'd love to hear additional opinions on how to improve the writing and fine tune the article.
Should the article contain information about TNH's teaching? A discussion about this can be found on the archived talk page. The snippet about his teachings that was in the article in the past sounded more like a press release than a good analysis. If the teachings are included I would think the focus should be:
How his teachings are different from other teachers
How have his teachings contributed to a "Western Buddhism"
What points of criticism have there been about his teachings from others?
This has been created almost exclusively by the hard work of User:Bastin8, who has turned this article from non-existence to (IMO) FA standard in only a very few weeks. All comments appreciated; but particularly, are the photos appropriate and are the two that are not PD fine from a licencing and tagging POV?
I think this is an excellent article. Nice work! The only thing I found amiss were the image labels assocated with the image in the "Invasion" section. For some reason those appeared over the text section in my IE browser, rather than over the image. There are a few red links on the page, which may need to be addressed if this is take for FA. (But the page is definitely GA quality, IMO). The Marie-Adélaïde and Grande Duchesse Charlotte images have a deletion warning on its page, so you might want to take a look at that. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the praise. Two of the three issues raised, I predicted on the talk page, so they'll be addressed in no time. I'm in the process of fixing the red links (by creating stubs). I didn't upload the pictures, so I'm not au fait with their status; I think that the pictures of the Grand Duchesses will have to be Fair Use (they're only allowed under a non-commercial basis, although the Marie-Adélaïde one may be public domain, as it was taken before the First World War).
A pressing issue is that of the text links; using both Firefox and IE, the text links are in the right place for me (and that's for all resolutions and several different settings, too). If any more people have trouble with it, I'll just change it to labels in the image; the only reason that the labels are overlaid is that I thought that it would be a neat way to help users come to grips with Luxembourgian geography. Bastin 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the style information for the label templates it should have worked. I'm not sure why it didn't unless there's a bug in my version of IE, or else it has something to do with my security settings. I'm using version 6.0.2900.2180... — RJH (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might explain it. My IE is 7.0.5450.4 (although I use Firefox for just about everything), so the problem may have been fixed with the newer version. If that's the case, and those using IE 6 do have trouble viewing the map, I will make the afore-mentioned changes. Bastin 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've now resolved all the red links, some with stubs, some with full articles.
Luxembourg's Service Information et Presse (a government agency and the publishers of the pictures) have informed me that they aren't aware of any factors that might have released them into the public domain, and that they are unwilling to change their licence situation (i.e. non-commerial use only). Since they can't qualify under Fair Use (because the topic isn't related closely enough), I've deleted them from the article and am looking for alternative pictures; I've contacted a few websites that offer alternatives, asking if they might allow free licensing of their images. Bastin 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Since my last update, I've had no responses to my requests to webmasters, which is irritating. A picture of Marie-Adélaïde would really be useful; she was an instrumental character to the political discord, relations with Germany, and the subsequent revolutions, and her youth (20 when the war broke out) ought to be emphasised. Nonetheless, the article doesn't hang on such a picture, and there are many images already, so I think that it is acceptable as is. Are there any more comments or criticisms to be made? For one, I could imagine it having more categories, but I can't find another one that's suitable. Bastin 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning on submitting this article for FA to finish out the prequel trilogy articles, so I would like suggestions concerning FA candidacy. :) The Filmaker03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference at the end of the paragraph was meant to overlord the entire paragraph, I've now trimmed the paragraph and spread the citation around. The Filmaker00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent time readjusting the content but not the written text of the page above, and wish to be advised on how to proceed. This (thankful) request also includes the character page listed through this helpful little box. The text on all the pages was mainly copied from other sites by previous people, which is a BIG reason to change it. I will be thankful for any suggestions! --Crampy2021:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Excel Saga for a FA class anime article. Characters should be briefly summarized in the article, as should the world. Episode list is ugly - could use a screencap from each episode and a summary. Current summary is completly unwikified (no hyperlinks). Theme songs is barely a stub section (list of two...), should be merged with soundtracks and expanded. No inline citations, sources should be renamed references, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Is there no manga? It should also be described. Critical reception (reviews, rankings, etc.) section is completly missing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are manga (see infobox on main article), but they were based on the anime rather than the other way around (the manga and novels, apart from the novelisations of the series itself, are all in the form of prequels/spinoffs/subplots to the main story). Most of the material has never been translated (although there are fan translations of one of the manga and a chapter of the other).
This article has improved a lot since the last peer review and its well on its way to being a featured article. The lists have been removed, it relates to the real world, there is now a picture of the city, it broadly covers the subject, etc. There may be a few problems left with this article, such as the fact that most of the images do not have fair use rationales and that the table of contents is too long. Any suggestions on how to improve the article further would be appreciated. Squirepants10101:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's far too in universe - it's not enough to just say 'such and such is a fictional...' and then go on in the rest of the article treating it as if it's real. All of your citations are to the show itself - did the creators of the show ever discuss Bikini Bottom in interviews etc.? -Malkinann04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A long article which is quite impressive in its coverage. Some referencing and tightening could put it on the fast track to FA status. - RoyBoy80016:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
You can start by turing the list in the "Types of elevator hoist mechanisms" (more specifically the "Hydraulic type") section into a prosaic paragraph. Other sections such as the "Controls in early elevators" and "The elevator algorithm" can also be improved in the same way. The lists at the end of the article sould be moved to their own article along with most of the larger sections to comply with WP:SUMMARY. The lead needs to be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. Tarret12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I notice, that in my view can be improved as it heads towards FA candidacy:
Lead is too short, as Tarret mentioned.
Needs footnotes, at approximately 1 per paragraph.
Some 55 items are on the table of contents, this could be reduced to a fraction of this. I suggest merging many sections, or using ;heading for many of the sub headings.
Paragraphs are often short and choppy, often they are one sentance long or bulleted items. These can be merged and expanded into full paragraphs.
Support all of the above comments, particularly regarding lead length and TOC length.
"A special type of elevator is the paternoster, a constantly moving chain of boxes. A similar concept moves only a small platform, which the rider mounts while using a handhold and was once seen in multi-story industrial plants." If you read the article on Paternosters instances are given (particularly in Europe) of their use in many public buildings, universities and office buildings (See IG Farben Building).
I remember watching a documentary some years back about Norman Foster's Tokyo Millenium Tower proposals[2]. Central to his concept was the proposed use of "maglev" elevators (I think) to overcome the height 'limit' and speed restrictions of cable supported elevators (presumably due to cable flex and speed)[3]. No mention is given that I can see, of the design limits of Traction elevators or the "maglev" elevators (unless they come under the "climbing electric elevator" section). One approach is to provide 'transit floors' where people get out of one elevator and into another serving higher floors[4]. This needs more research and a discussion about how elevator design limits the height and economic viability of skyscrapers. --Mcginnly | Natter12:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very US centric. Doesn't mention Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, one of the most popular rpgs in Europe. Doesn't mention the world Europe, even. And of course nothing about rpg in Japan, or well, anywhere outside US - which of course is treated as 'the world'. More inline citations are needed, and it doesn't seem to use any academic publications (all but one references are websites): I would strongly recommend reading such books like Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games As Social Worlds by Gary Alan Fine, for example. The existing references are not formated properly: some are actually online reprints of journal articles and should be formatted acordingly. Last but not least, perhaps Tékumel, which formed an important part of Fine's research, should be mentioned.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not very familiar with Japanese rpgs, I think Record of Lodoss War was based on one, and perhaps members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga can help to identify some others. On that note, shouldn't the article describe historu of CRPGs too, as an important child of rpgs? PS. I would be happy to add a section on RPG in Poland, but I am not familar with RPGs in Europe to write a more general section on that - and even in history of Polish RPG I am not an expert.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that in the midsts of my remarks about US-centricism and need to globalize the article I should add a disclaimer that without a doubt US was a pioneer and (still is?) the most important market, and US games are much more often translated into other languages then the other way around, so the US section should likely be the largest. But currently US related topics cover over 90% of the article, and this is likely too much.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a concern. I'm writing this from the UK, so though I may have an English-language bias I doubt I'm US-centric. Most of the history of RPGs is likely concern the market leaders and innovators; the former are definitely the Americans; the latter, I'm not so sure. Percy Snoodle09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have posted some Citation needed tags, and a few embedded comments in the article. Please address those.
The inline citations are from just two web sources. Should be more broadly resourced. I shall be trying the book "India Wins Freedom", if something can be brought from it.
Lead: Starts with "..was a poet, writer..". But his primary identity is as a politician, that should be the first thing mentionrd. Also, not much is there in the article to establish Azad as a poet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Publication of 30 pages of India wins freedom were withheld at the time as per Azad's wishes and released 30 years after his death. There were some articles in newspapers about it at the time but I can't remember whether it contained anything interesting or controversial. Please try to check the details just to be sure. Tintin (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A general review for clarity and good english language stuff would be a good idea, I think. Ultimatly, I and another editor want to see this be a good article and potentially a featured article, and we have both exhausted our own resources and would prefer to have solid books by doctorate posessing Egyptologists, so if there are any obvious holes that need to be filled in, it would be good to neatly and clearly identify them, because filling them will require some pretty deep reasearch. ThanksThanatosimii01:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to know how much more info is out there, but the only obvious gap is in the monuments section: In Upper Egypt, he built at the temple of Amun at Karnak, and at the temple of Monthu at Armant. Considering these are listed as his major monuments in the infobox it would be nice to see more than a sentence on them. Aside from that it is a well-written interesting and well referenced article. Yomangani11:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly new article about American culture. How can the article be improved. I know that it is simply short and an expansion would be good. I have a copy of the book, if that gives any perspective on citing the book itself. Thanks, Iolakana|T20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on an interesting F1 team. Looking far more comprehensive these days. Still quite a lot of tidying up to do and much more referencing to really tie it all down. Before I really get into the refining of all that though, with a view to heading for FA status, I'm looking for feedback on:
Structure of the article - does splitting it out into so many sections work?
Is the length and level of detail about right?
Does this article work for a 'lay' reader? Have I assumed too much knowledge, or conversely, spelled things out in too much detail?
(By the way, I'm not likely to reply in the next couple of days, but I should be around from Wednesday. 4u1e19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I definately qualify a a 'lay' reader on any sort of auto racing, so there is way too much information there for me to digest. I would definately place a shortcut to Portal:Formula One one the page. I went ahead and linked "the 1966 and 1967 Drivers and Constructors championships" because those pages show the notability of Brabham quite clearly. See more comments here. • CQ15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE: Thanks CQ. I will consider putting a portal link on. In fact, perhaps we should do this on all the articles! If you can work your way through and come up with any further bits which make no sense to a new reader that would be great. Ta. 4u1e18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have only read the intro and glanced at the outline. The start is good overall.
At 30 KB, I would lean toward shortening the article. RESPONSE: Absolutely - I've still got quite a lot of redrafting to cut it down. There's still a bit of duplication where I've moved things around. Thanks for confirming my views!4u1e18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does constructor mean anything other than essentially "who builds the cars"? I am unfamiliar with the word, and the link takes me to a list instead of an explanation. RESPONSE: Constructor is actually quite a complicated concept. I won't bore you with it here, but I'll see if there's something better to link to that goes into the murky details.4u1e18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "fan-car" is. Maurreen 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) RESPONSE: That's meant to intrigue you and draw you further into the article, where it is covered! It's been wikilinked to the full article since your comment, but that rather short circuits the need to explain it at all later on in the article, because the linked article, naturally, gives more detail than is needed here. I may remove the wikilink in the lead and give a slightly bigger hint as to why it is interesting, and a (see below) to drive the point home.4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) FURTHER RESPONSE: Done. Although I left out the (see below) as being a hint too far4u1e18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. A couple more thoughts on the intro: I would move up the 1966 championship to maybe the second sentence. It seems to be the most notable fact, so it should have a lot of prominence. Also, in probably the first sentence, I would indicate the team's duration. Maurreen04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less. I couldn't see a way of squeezing more info into the first sentence, but the information is present in the order you suggest. I suspect I can do more to make it less opaque for non fans. 4u1e18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first collaboration of WikiProject Filmmaking. We're about to move on to the next one, so it would be nice to get some other eyes on this one before sending along to FAC. I'll be available to respond and rewrite in the evenings; other project members may also be available for comment. Many thanks in advance for all critiques offered! Girolamo Savonarola16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a well-written interesting article. A few comments:
Amateur formats - doesn't seem directly related to 35mm especially the 8mm reference
How film works - this section is a bit too detailed: there is section about static build-up for example. Since there is a whole article on the subject, I would think this section would benefit from some trimming.
References, although good are spotty. There are heavily referenced statements mixed with sections without references.
Normal WP:MOS checking needs to be carried out; Non breaking space between measurements,not repeating the title in the headings (so 'History' rather than 'History of 35mm film') etc.
I've tried to rewrite the amateur section to mainly highlight the divergence of the amateurs from 35mm usage.
I haven't gotten around to the "how film works" section, but it should be noted that photographic film doesn't really discuss the matter to as much depth, nor does any other article I am aware of. It may perhaps be more appropriate for expansion in another article. However, some components of motion picture film are not found in still films, including things like remjet backing. Static is also more of a problem for cine film since it is moving at a very fast speed, unlike stills film stock. I'll take a look and see what can be managed, but maybe at least a basic description of the process along with the key differences from still film is a better idea?
As far as references go, I think I probably see what you're talking about, but just so that I know precisely: which sections?
That improved it, it now seems to have some relation to the topic
It might be an idea to have it in its own article or as a section in photographic film - otherwise I'll guess you'll be repeating it in any 16mm and 8mm articles as well
Just some examples (there are a few trailing sentences in other sections apart from these):
1.37:1 (1.33:1) "Academy" - first sentence cited only
Widescreen - first half cited, second half not
Super 35 - no citations in the second half
3-Perf, VistaVision and 35 mm still photography - no citations
First pass here - I think it is a very good article! A small point, but do you think a reference to Alfred Thayer Mahan in the neighborhood of the Civil War to WWI history would be useful? I don't want to overemphasize something unimportant, but it has been my understanding that he was a chief architect of the "expand the Navy" philosophy. Kaisershatner20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has previously failed an FA nomination and a GA nomination (also had a peer review). A lot of work has been done on the article since then and I think all the issues have been taken care of. I think it deserves a shot at FA again, so a thorough critical review will be apreciated.--Konstable14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to make this a good or featured article. At this point I have written 95% of the article and would like some new eyes to read it. Also, I have been unable to get the main book on the topic by Bruno Heim through interlibrary loan. Gimmetrow22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address the issues typically brought up by automated suggestions and I'm not sure what else to do. I shortened one long caption. Should this go to WP:FAC ? Gimmetrow20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions
I've reviewed this article per the FA nomination. Here are some concerns with the first few sections:
"the application of distinct forms of heraldry" This seems a bit confusing and wordy. Is it an application of something or is it just heraldy? A type of heraldy? The word distinct could probably be cut. What are forms of heraldy?
2nd sentence uses "Church heraldry." Is this an alternative name? Should it be bolded as well in the first sentence? If it's a synonym, it shouldn't assume we no. If not, explain.
Sentence 3 uses the phrase "the shield", apparently to refer to the coat of arms, but this is another synonym we haven't learned yet.
"among Eastern churches the mantle or cloak is used in heraldry" do you mean "only" or in lieu of something else? I'm confused?
"For the Church, the need for identification arose primarily with seals to mark documents" the need arose with seems like an awkward construction even though i take your meaning. could this be improved?
"As secular heraldry developed, clergy imitated the noble coats of arms, but being non-combatants they replaced military elements with clerical elements." Imitated in what way? I'm not familiar. Don't just tell me what's different; what's the same? And is secular heraldry analogous to noble coat-of-arms?
History jumps rather dramatically from the 16th century to 1905. Did anything happen in between? The 1905 sentence also seems a bit curt. How did this come about? Reactions? Anything else?
"International custom and national law govern limited aspects of heraldry, but Church heraldry since 1960 depends on expert advice to follow established principles." I want more information here. What expert advice? What is expert advice? What principles? What customs? I'm a little lost. It sounds like the only time there was a formal set of coats of arms was between 1905-1960. But I had to reread a bit just to figure that out, and I'm not even sure if I'm right. Maybe a topic sentence at the start of the second paragraphy would help>?
what is an "ecclesiastical armorist"?
Citatation need for the first rule of heraldry. Also "A heraldic device must be recognizeable and distinguishable especially in battle."
"or and argent" Might consider wikilinking these because it looks like 2 conjunctions next to each other. But your choice.
I believe I have addressed these concerns, except the history issue (16th-20th C) which will take some time. Unfortunately you read the text just after I had made substantial additions to address the concerns of another reviewer, and before a copy-edit phase. On a couple specifics, an "armorist" is an officer of arms. I thought linking to rule of tincture was enough of a cite, as it is the first sentence of that article, but I changed and quoted from Heim. I've also tried to distinguish the shield from the entire achievement. The RCC used to register the achievement in a way similar to the official office of heraldry in the UK. The things around the shield were very tightly governed. Now that arms are no longer registered, much of that is up in the air, limited only by (where present) laws of particular countries. While the whole achievement is theoretically unregulated, the legacy of strict rules and a desire not to appear pretentious tend to keep the things around the shield in order; Heim and Selvester were concerned mainly with poor shield design. Gimmetrow01:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the rule of tincture link; I just missed that somehow. So your call on that one, although it's usually better to error on the side of two many citations I think. My other visual error is that I read amorist instead of armorist. Makes more sense now. IMO, you could wikilink that one rather than parenthetically defining. Not sure, but you might want to define achievement a little earlier (and link if possible). It was never used in the sections I read and it seemes to be fundamental. It might make sections like this one easier to parse:
"The earliest seals bore a likeness of the owner of the seal, as did contemporary seals of the nobility with the shield included. Personal arms of bishops and abbots continued to be used after their deaths, gradually becoming an impersonal seal.<ref name="Rogers"/> Over time the seals of the nobility were reduced to just the shield."
This is supposed to be saying that seals started out just showing a person; secular seals would have a person with a shield. Over time the person disappared, the shield remained. Clergy adopted that style changing most everything but the shield. Gimmetrow03:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this sentence:
"For the Church, the things most needing identification were documents and buildings, whose origin and ownership was distinguished by seals. "
It's clear but it seems unscholarly in tone and a bit much. Would something like "The Church used seals to identify the origin and ownership of documents and buildings." still convey the same meaning?
"Ecclesiastical heraldry in the Church follows established heraldic customs in regard to composition and marshalling, but the Church also has an interest in avoiding pretentious clerics"
Firstly, because I'm not sure what the customs are or exactly what marshalling is (is there something you could link to perhaps?) Secondly, the part about pretentious clerics seems subjective as and such would definitely require a citation. Seems like there might be a more scholarly way of wording that too. Thirdly, it's unclear what about the customs would make them pretentious anyway.
One other thing from the revisions you just made: "good shield composition". Is there a less subjective word than "good" to describe the nature of the shield composition?
Yes, it is. The idea is that "most" details of heraldry are the same, except for the exceptions that this article goes over. Marshalling is handled later. I just cut the sentence; it seems better that way. I think I've removed the subjective comments. There is a clerical tendency to add more elements than are due - one of the points of the rules seems to be to curb that tendency. Pretentiousness perhaps isn't the right word, but one source did use the term "self-aggrandizement". The tendency can also lead to "bad" compositions, but this matter of taste is covered by the quotes from Heim. Gimmetrow03:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some additions
A few specificities added to help -- they are all covered, I think, by the various existing references to the CE article (which itself is not bad), and others, and the link to durham.HarvardOxon06:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally removed it to avoid going into discussion of charges, but you were right - this is an interesting charge found in the archepiscopal arms of UK. (leaving note months after discussion) Gimmetrow14:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Benedict has departed from the restrictions issued in 1969 regarding the mitre and pallium, as I understand it from the WP article on his coat of arms. I have added a parenthetical note of this in the text of this article. However, I am not an expert in this field and someone else might want to look it over.
Also, the image of the papal coat of arms for that section strikes me as poor for this purpose. It has a lot of other elements than commonly included in the coat of arms and the essential elements are kind of crowded at the top. Would anyone object to using this image instead? Vaquero10023:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the coat of arms depicted in the article appears to be a personal c.o.a. rather than the arms of the Holy See. If so, whose arms are depicted ought to be mentioned (I am thinking they are the arms of Pope Paul III). Vaquero10023:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The coat of arms of Benedict XVI were mentioned at the end of that section. What you have added seems redundant to me. (I'm not a fan of two "of"s in the lead either.) The image was selected to illustrate supporters (angels) which are not discussed in the other papal insignia pages. I have searched the images on Commons for a good illustration and this was about the best I found. (The Ecclesiastical heraldry category here is my work product trying to locate images. I even created/uploaded the picture you've suggested, but I have it up for deletion at the moment!) Paul III looks correct. Gimmetrow00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling I would not have much to contribute to this article...BTW, you have done a lot of good work on this article. The rest that I can see looks very well-written. Vaquero10001:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks good, well-researched, thorough. Could probably use some tweaking before it gets nominated for a good article. Any suggestions?--Esprit15d20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been dedicatedly working on this article since 14 July. After taking extensive cues from other Featured Articles of the same type Michigan State University and University of Michigan, I think I need the community's opinion on how to further improve the article. Some paragraphs in the article have been directly copied from another featured article Indian Institutes of Technology. One possible issue with this article can be that I have used IIT Kharagpur's own published source as a reference many times. However, I don't think this would be detrimental for the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article as most such info is regarding the institute's own establishments, programs, etc. and no judgement has been used from them. I eventually plan to make this article a Featured Article, and I feel that the article isn't very far from it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long sentence, difficult to wind through: Like other IITs, it was established to train scientists and engineers in order to develop a national skilled work-force with the aim of bolstering economic and social development of India after it attained independence from British rule in 1947.
IIT Kharagpur is possibly the only major technical institution in the world that started life in a prison house. Reword to avoid the need to say "possibly": in an encyclopedia, we need to know if it is or if it isn't.
After the IIT Council, the organisational structure of IITs separate. I don't know what that means.
Admission to most undergraduate and postgraduate courses in IIT Kharagpur is granted through various written entrance examinations. Go through the article and reduce redundancies. The campus currently has 29 academic departments, centres and schools and 18 hostels (called "Halls of Residence", or just Halls).
More redundancy and grammar errors: Over the years, tThe library has grown on to be the biggest technical library in Asia[10] and Because of provisions and powers granted by the Indian Institutes of Technology Act, IIT Kharagpur drafts own curricula to adapt to the changes in educational requirements, free from bureaucratic hurdles. Drafts its own?
That is only a random run-through, picking random sentences here and there, which indicate the need for a complete copy edit.
There are entire sections which are unreferenced (for example, Alumni). Also, put your categories in alphabetical order. Sandy22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, thanks for the review. I have thoroughly copyedited the prose, and hopefully done what you asked for. I have removed one speculation from the alumni section. Other than that, I feel nothing else needs citation (hoping you won't ask for citation that a particular person was an IIT KGP alumni). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article has the potential to be a Featured Article someday. A lot of work has been done on it in the past year or so, by me and by many other editors, both respected regulars and anonymous IPs. I know there are many things left to be done; the Kingdom of Acre section should be expanded, it could use some better pictures, and these days an FA would never pass without inline references, but ideas from fresh eyes would also be helpful. Adam Bishop19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on and off on this for the last month or two to clean it up as a possible good/featured candidate. As I've never gotten to this point with an article, and I'm really the only person who's touched it, I'm looking for any pointers I can get to get it up to that point, if even possible. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides references, I'm trying to find out what else this article needs. I feel it needs an outside opinion, as I and others have an old perspective on this, and a new one may be needed. Thank you for any criticism, Newnam(talk)02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is very well along, but needs refining before submitted for good for featured article status. I definitely see some structuring issues. Anymore suggestions?--Esprit15d16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice overall. The article could do with a slightly longer introduction. It also needs in-line citations, particularly for personal comments and observations from witnesses. In locations where there are external web links, please use the {{cite web}} template in reference tags. "Grammy Award for Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media" can be linked. There are more categories than there normally should be; perhaps some can be weeded out? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Article is currently suffering badly from a lack of content. The history section is only 3 sentences long. Significance is only 2 and Today is only 1. Needs to be much much more.
Use [[Wikipedia:Summary style)) to perhaps give a concise description of the Second continental congress, declaration of independence and the constitution so that the article could be read by someone without a working knowledge of American history. Don't go overboard and always relate back to the building.
Perhaps a quick summary sentence as to the significance of the Liberty Bell for us non-U.S. people (Oh it's the one with the cracka and the rivet!, I remember now)?
Suggest sections on Architeture (Or Building). Who built the clock?
The gallery pics are nice but would be better served to illustrate the text.
Today section - Change to Recent History - I'd be inclined to include some of the protest anecdotes from the website you cite. Communist bums! Vietnam etc. etc. the building is a focus and distills american history as a venue for protest.
Has the building ever been altered, extended, refurbished, remodelled? When, By whom, in what way, why etc.etc.?
Not a bad article but it needs references. The section on "The Crack" should be incorporated into "19th Century history, repair". The writing could also be improved in parts. To do this try to see if you can make the same statement using less words. For example, the "according to eyewitness testimony" phrase could be removed from the article. Also try specifying who the many are in the statement "proved unpopular with many". Are they vistors, tourists or commentators? Cedars05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the things that I find needing improvement before reaching FAC as of this edit. Please read all points before editing, as you may be able to solve two problems with one edit. Feel free to strike out when completed. (Location is donated by Section:Paragraph#:Sentence#) Newnam(talk)05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intro:1 - First paragraph should be more than one sentence...perhaps merge with other pieces of lead
Intro:2:1 - Who recognises him as an icon? Could be construed as point of view.
Intro:2:2 - What are "#1 singles" (I know, but a lot won't by the wording)? Worded as "He has a record twenty-nine" implies that he owns the single...so do I (maybe reword to "performed" or "written" or both, depending on what it was). Also, perhaps phrase it as twenty-nine "#1 singles" in the United States, rather than twenty-nine U.S. "#1 singles" (with "#1 singles" still needing improvement).
Intro:2:3 - "Top ten" of what? What makes his talent as a bassist "influential"?
Intro:2:4 - "Highly successful" is a bit much. If anything, just "successful", but even that seems POV.
Intro:3:1 - Wings is "introduced" here, but discussed earlier. Should be introduced before mentioned (I hope that makes sense).
Intro:3:3 - The last part doesn't need parentheses.
Intro:4 - Also would be better with more than one sentence. Maybe this could be combined with the first paragraph. Change "aside from" to "in addition to".
Early Years:1:1 - I don't think his full name is needed again here. What is Walton supposed to link to?
Early Years:1:2 - Replace the semicolon with a period. Wikilink Roman Catholic and Protestant.
Early Years:1:3 - What is a "dance-band"?
Early Years:1:5 - Is the location of where he traded the instrument that important. IMO it is not needed.
Early Years:1:6 - The whole thing seems wordy, maybe changed to "The early death of his mother Mary was a formative influence on the his life. She died from breast cancer, on October 31, 1956 when he was 14".
Early Years:2:1 - Wikilink "Irish" to Irish people.
History(RIB):1:2 - Before "Stuart Sutcliffe" remove "the addition of".
History(RIB):1:4 - Rephrase to "McCartney took over bass guitar duties in the early 1960s following the departure of Sutcliffe, after Lennon and Harrison had declined".
History(RIB)(S):1:1 - Is "eyeball to eyeball" a good or bad thing? What is it supposed to mean? They collaborated on many what?
History(RIB)(S):1:2 - Remove "out" from the beginning of the sentence. "It is claimed" are weasel words.
History(RIB)(S):1:5 - The "(naturally)" is unneccesary and POV.
History(RIB)(S):1 - Be consistent with "McCartney/Lennon" or "McCartney - Lennon". Or if there is a differenc, don't make them sound the same.
History(RIB)(B):1:2 - Place a "The" before the "Beatles" (proper title). Also, place apostrophe to denote possession.
History(RIB)(B):1:3 - Specify "writing" as "song writing". Very long sentence...perhaps too long.
History(RIB)(B):2:1 - "It is now generally accepted" seems like weasel words.
History(RIB)(B):2 - Has nothing to do with him being a bassist (shouldn't be under 'bassist' section).
History(RIB)(B):3:1 - What is the use and context of "mature" and "middle Beatles period"...needs more explaining.
History(RIB)(B):3 - Also has nothing to do with him being a bassist (shouldn't be under 'bassist' section).
History(RIB)(OI) - What is this section title supposed to mean. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with its contents.
History(RIB)(OI):1:1 - It doesn't help this article to know who The Family Way starred.
History(RIB)(OI):1:2 - The comma after "released as an album" is not needed.
History(RIB)(OI):1:3 - Remove "he" after "these outside productions".
History(RIB)(OI):2:2 - Remove the dash and replace with a comma after "began an affair" and before "however".
History(RIB)(OI):2:6 - Place "Heather" after "Linda's daughter" and place commas around Heather. Be consistent with birthyears in parentheses...use "(Born 19xx)" or "(Born in 19xx)", but use the same throughout.
History(RIB)(OI):2:7 - Replace "would remain" with "remained" and remove "and devoted".
History(RIB)(EOTB):1:1 - Change the first "he" to "McCartney".
History(RIB)(EOTB):1:2 - Add a comma after "jeolousy".
History(RIB)(EOTB):1:3 - After "the public's interest in them", remove "was only".
History(RIB)(EOTB):2:1 - Did Lennon leave "between" August and September? Was it August or September...it only takes one day to leave.
History(RIB)(EOTB):3 - Sentence should be merged into 2nd paragraph. A one sentence paragraph is not good.
History(ESC):1:2 - What is the meaning of "underwhelming" in this context?
OVERALL - The whole article doesn't seem very oragnized. Pieces of information are mentioned more than once and the chronological order of the article is not very good.
OVERALL - This article will go nowhere without references. Inline citiations throughout the article would be most beneficial.
The following section called 'Achievements, world records, and miscellania' is a fancy name for nothing other than a trivia section. These are fine for articles in their early stages, but those that are at a further stage shouldn't have as such. If the information is relevant, please add it into an appropriate section in the article rather than lazily bunching it up all together in bullet points. Also, some of the paragraphs are stubby, which fails criterion 2. a. of "What is a featured article?", since some Wikipedians wish to get this to FA status - the trivia section will do plenty of harm to anyone's chances of achieving this. Also, certain sentences need the eye of a good copy editor.
Also, I would say it fails in criterion 2. c. which asks for appropriate referencing and inline citations, of which there currently isn't enough. This shouldn't be hard to achieve since this is Paul McCartney - there should be tons of books / articles that can be cited. Any statements / opinions attributed as the words of McCartney himself should especially cite their sources.
In short, treat the article as though someone reading it hasn't heard of the Beatles and McCartney. Any statements applauding his influence etc. should cite appropriate sources. LuciferMorgan04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Along with some random anons, I have been the only major contributor to the article for a while. I would eventually like it to become featured. I have tried to look at pages for similar liberal arts colleges and get a feel for what's going on. However, I need some other people to look over the article and tell me what direction to take it in. --Liface20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to rewrite some of the bulletted lists into regular paragraphs, such as those under "Achievements" and "Traditions and events." The more of these you can convert, the better it will go for FA. JonHarder12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a long way to go before it could become a FA, but, all in all, it's not too bad. Here are my problems and suggestions:
Comprehensiveness is not nearly there. For comprehensive university articles, see FA's University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and Duke University. For example, there should be a Campus section dedicated to the scenery and important facilities/buildings on campus. I personally know very little about Puget Sound, but the one thing I have heard is that the campus is beautiful.
Reference format is not correct. See above examples for proper techniques.
Article is under-referenced. Excluding the Notable Alumni section, there are only 8 total references. In particular, the lead (zero refs) and the History section (1 ref) are very under-referenced. Every fact should have a citation. I disagree with JonHarder about merely moving the references from the lead. Having them in both places would be more appropriate. See current FA's for good techniques.
Organization issues. Focus of article is not quite what it should be at times - it goes into too much depth in some areas, while neglecting others all together. For example, Tuition and finances and Fraternities and sororities do not deserve their own sections. Rather, a more appropriate way to deal with this would be to create a Profile section under Academics for the tuition/fin aid info. Traditions and events and Fraternities and sororities should be under a Student life section.
Agree wholeheartedly with JonHarder's important suggestion about converting bullets to prose. This is a must for FA's. There should be very few (ideally, zero) bullet points in the article. In the Athletics section, instead of listing the sports in a bullet manner, they should be stated in prose (i.e. The University's 21 varsity sports teams include: Men's Baseball, Men's and Women's Basketball, Men's and Women's Crew (competes in the Northwest Collegiate Rowing Conference), Men's and Women's Cross Country, etc.). This is just an example. I personally think all the sports should not be listed. The number is appropriate and particular sports that have been outstanding recently merit mentioning as well. Notable Alumni should be converted to prose as well and needs to be expanded greatly.
One photo, which doesn't even provide a fair use rationale, is not nearly enough for an article of a college.
Prose is ok, but definitely not brilliant, one of the requirements for FA. A thorough copyedit is in order.
I seriously need help, it was once on FAC, but as a result, it ended up failing, so i'll need help to get it to the appropriate status, cheers —MinunSpiderman10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but that's all the Mudkip article has. Take a look at Torchic and Bulbasaur, they have a third, original introduction paragraph, which Mudkip is lacking. I don't profess to be very knowledgable about Pokemon, though; I just like a little flavor in articles. ♠ SG→Talk05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions that could help develop this article would be greatly appreciated. I already plan on referencing properly, and adding a lot more citations in. Cheers. Cvene6408:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the referencing is an issue as you've noted - there are lots of 'weasel words' which will benefit from citations.
You might want to create an article on Max Guazzini or delink his name.
There are references to 'the south' but no explanation to what this means, what the connection to the south is etc.
There is a sudden name change to Paris Rugby halfway through, again with no explanation
'Jonny Wilkinson even made an appearance at Town Hall' - should that be 'the town hall' or is Town Hall a locale associated with the club (in which case it needs explanation)?
Hi! I'm a French Stade Français fan and I took the liberty of working on your contribution. I hope you won't mind... :¬) I removed the following sentence: "Stade still captured the French championship, sitting at the top of the league table." The "phases finales" as we called the knock-out phases are what matter here here. Finishing first of the regular season is irrelevant in France and it doesn't appear on records. Only the winner of the final can be said to hold the French championship. I added a couple of things about recent history (how the players got rid of their coach in 2000, e.g.). I also took care of this North/South stuff underlined by Yomangani. Tell me what you think. Take it all out if you think it's irrelevant.
I also have a couple of suggestions: Stade Français is first and foremost a "multisports" club (22 sections including sailing and bridge!). It was first an athletics club (many Olympic medallists, including Marie-José Pérec) and also had a fairly successful football side in the 60s-80s. I think a disambiguation page and a change of the article's name (to Stade—Français_CASG) is needed. I'm of course ready to contribute an article on Stade Français (the multisports one). The same is true of Racing Club de France, another multisports club, also famous for its athletics and football sections, whose rugby section merged with US Metro a few years back. I'm going to add a few lines about this in the Racing Club de France article.
I started this article last weekend and it was made "good article" after one day, which definitely exceeded my expectations. Can anyone give me some feedback, and do you think it's on its way to becoming a possible featured article? I would like some good constructive comments. Thanks! Mike H.I did "That's hot" first!05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great start as ever. I'm not surprised that it made "good article" after one day. Some comments on content. Please bear in mind that I abhor long articles so I won't comment on anything after the first three paragraphs or so because I won't normally read beyond that point.
Advertising Age ranked the jingle in the top 10, not the campaign.
Advertising Age gives a couple of copyright dates on that page, 1999 and 2005; from this it's reasonable to infer that the list was compiled in 1999. Give that date.
The content of the second paragraph is weakly supported; it shows black people and the article content infers that they were targeted. This is reasonable but it would be nice to have a more definitive source for that. It doesn't necessarily convey targeting.
I'd hate to have to edit this because it contains the new "ref" tags which embed vast amounts of unnecessary clutter amid the content. I do hope somebody will come up with a more sensible way of putting references into a Mediawiki article.
I fixed the first two qualms. The third one needs some more research and I'll try to do that in the next couple of days. I don't know anything about Mediawiki so the refs will have to stay the way they are unless someone else who knows more can fix them. Thanks for the input! Mike H.I did "That's hot" first!08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been an ongoing argument about the m:Cite.php system versus the {{ref}} and {{note}} system, where supporters of Cite.php say that it's the new and improved way of doing things, while supporters of {{ref}} and {{note}} say that it doesn't clutter text. Personally, I prefer Cite.php since there's no possibility of writing a ref that doesn't have a corresponding note or vice versa. The argument about article clutter is probably not going to stop, though.
As far as the article itself goes, I'd like to see an analysis of how Fred Flintstone can continue to power his car with his feet after he's smoked a pack of Winstons. I suspect nobody has researched that, though. To be serious, the article is interesting and well-written. One thing that comes to mind is whether this slogan specifically had any impact on the FCC's decision to end cigarette advertising on television. Are there any other lasting effects of the jingle, besides those mentioned in the intro? --Elkman - (Elkspeak)18:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the "Winston" jingle was referenced in The Manchurian Candidate, which would be a citation for popular culture. It has been mentioned in other places but I can't name them off the top of my head. As for the FCC, Congress discussed the Winston jingle as well as "Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch!" at length, because they were the catchiest ads seen on TV, and could target the most smokers. Mike H.I did "That's hot" first!01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One point I know of (and endorse, as a grammatical descriptivist!) is that some grammarians have defended "like a cigarette should". Right now you've got Malcolm Gladwell and a dictionary. I think there's a glaring omission, though, in that there's nothing in the article about the actual taste of Winstons (not that I would know). Why did they choose this selling point, and how did it fit into the cigarette advertising climate of the day? Were Winstons considered a better-tasting cigarette before the campaign? That would add helpful context. --Dhartung | Talk19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Winstons were two months old when the "Winston tastes good" campaign started. I believe I read somewhere that what set Winstons apart from other cigarettes was that they were only carried in filters, while most cigarettes were only starting to switch from unflitered. The full Winston jingle song describes the filter advantage as "The filter lets the flavor through!" I am at a loss as to where to put that, though. Mike H.I did "That's hot" first!01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has gone through some pretty intense editing recently, removing much POV, adding and formatting references, and removing unnecessarily links and such. I guess this is the logical next step to see where this article goes. Dr. Cash19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV seems to have largely been taken care of. I would only suggest that the Plagiarism and factual accuracy section be modified in order to remove Coulter's rather extensive screed about plagarism by left-wing authors. Reproducing her claims verbatim is not so much POV as it is a slide into a rather silly discussion about the relative frequency of plagarism in left-wing and right-wing books, and this (mini)discussion seems to give her the floor more than other voices in this "debate".
Now for the hard part. I believe that this article would benefit from a (short) discussion of Coulter's place among the American right: those who have influenced her (not just a list of names.. a little bit more in depth) and about her relationship with the current U.S. right. For instance, I know Andrew Sullivan has harshly criticized her. Are there others? Who are her most prominent supporters? We need a little context, of course without veering off into original research. Furthermore, the article needs to at least mention the whole "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" bit. This was unique caused a bit of a stir.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
I believe that previously noted issues with this article have been addresses and am thinking about submitting this article for another shot at FA status. Before going to FAC I would like some other opinions on the status of this article. --Allen3talk13:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A peer review was made in the past month with good results, but it needs some more copyediting to make it suitable for FA (criteria 2a of FA - the only issue that was raised during FAC nomination). It would be great as the geography articles in the FA list are mindblocking, limited to certain areas, because of the language, which scares users from other countries. Wikipedia and I need your help!--Pedro20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started copyediting again but I haven't got very far. If you are going for FA status it needs some hard work doing on it with regard to copyediting which will mean your personal writing style being lost. 2a is hard work. The references should use the citation templates (this will probably come up in FAC review), and you need to check WP:MOS for some style tips (such as adding non-breaking spaces). Good luck - Yomangani00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with my personal style being lost in this wikipedia. I'll check the Manual of Style for more tips.I'll correct that problem in references. thanks a lot Yomangani.--Pedro11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did the United Nations and politicians in foreign nations reacts to this movement back to the 600s CE and executions of dissenting scholars in Iran?--Patchouli07:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am requesting another peer review of this article, nearly one year on from the incident. The article's looking great, the facts are fairly "stabilized", and the story is no longer much of a current event, though the article may be a point of interest when the anniversary of the shooting comes about on the 22nd. KWH05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good well-researched NPOV article. I made some minor changes which I hope make it easier to understand.
Some comments from my read through:
"The officers were watching three men who they claimed were Somali or Ethiopian in appearance." - this doesn't appear to make sense in the context - "watching for" , perhaps? (or needs some further clarification)
The section on the killing is confusing because of the use of "their" rather than "his" or "hers" (Difficult call as I assume we don't know the sex of the officer and "his/her" is ugly), "officers" to refer only to firearms officers (so you end up with "...officers and the surveillance officer...") and the interchangable use of Hotel 3 and surveillance officer. It also reads badly as Hotel 3 is 'dragged' 3 times.
The timeline of the article has the police revealing the reason for the shoot-to-kill policy before the Muslim Council demanding to know the reason.
The section on "controversy over police procedure" has no inline references which lets it down. It reads as much more POV and WP:OR than the rest of the article as a result.
Personally, I'd leave it a while before going for FA status (although I'm sure it would qualify) because it is still current enough to need further work. - Yomangani11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yomangani... for what it's worth, I don't like the whole "Hotel 1,2,3" narrative either, but it is a paraphrase of a report of someone's leaked testimony, so there's only so much liberty to take with the wording. The bit on "controversy over police procedure" is probably one of the oldest parts of the article so although it's probably all from contemporary press reports, it wasn't fully cited. I do see how it seems different from other sections, though. Thanks again, KWH20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like specific advice on how to improve this because there doesn't seem to be a single episode article with featured status. Jay3218323:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The trivia section has been removed. Any suggestions on the type of information that should be included in the expansion of the article would be very appreciated. Jay3218315:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article failed Featured status over a year back, and has also been rated as a "good" article. I think a bunch of the initial FA concerns have been addressed, but I figure a peer review will be good to double check! lensovet22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions, with FAC in mind:
The lead is too short, for an article of this size it should be about three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
Try to convert some of the bulleted lists to prose, this is a common objection on FAC.
There are a few one paragraph subsections in the later stages of the article, try to merge some of these where possible.
There is a mix of referencing styles. Convert the inline external links to the format used elsewhere in the article.
The article needs going over with a fine-toothed comb to smooth out awkward prose. Taking the first paragraph of the first section as an example:
As of the 22 June 2003, opening date of the extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae, the BART system comprises 104 miles (167 km) of track and 43 stations. reads awkwardly - something like "Following the opening of an extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae on 22 June 2003, the BART system comprises 104 miles (167 km) of track and 43 stations." would be better.
2nd and 3rd sentences - the fact that the guage is non-standard is repeated.
Last sentence - the words "This" and "relatively" are redundant. I've made changes to this paragraph, but the whole article needs to be examined thoroughly.
I'd like to know how we can make this page a featured article. For one, I would like to have more analysis on Spielberg's themes and possibly have a greater look at his career. Wiki-newbie18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any references, very bad for an article this size on a subject who is likely to provoke controversy.
A bit of repetition (for example attending school and university) and overlinking in the first section (not everything needs linking, it makes it look busy)
Needs editing to remove POV phases
'Spielberg and Co.' Who are the 'and Co.'?
Have a look at WP:TRIVIA for some suggestions on how to deal with the trivia sections at the end. The trademark section in particular needs some ruthless pruning (Onscreen performers staring, usually at something off camera?!?).
I and other users have put a lot of effort into this article, particularly since I first started editing it. I haven't had much time to add more to the article recently, but I'm going to get back to it. I would really appreciate any comments at all. Comments, questions, insults... Anything! ♠ SG→Talk11:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The style guide suggests a standard order and naming for the end sections: See also, Notes, References, Further reading (or Bibliography, both optional), and External links. Bringing the See also section up would help conform to this layout. The current Sources section is non-standard and is really more like a See also since it is all internal links. See MoS:HEAD, WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE for help in this area. JonHarder15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! that will help plenty. I've updated the article with those changes, and I've also axed the "See also" section, as it only linked to two articles that were already linked. The "References" (previously "Sources") section is also updated with a much more standard style, though I thought it would be best to separate the ancient sources and modern books. What do you think now? ♠ SG→Talk04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. It is unusual to list other articles as references. I'm not objecting, but am not sure how feature article reviewers will respond. Reading through the article more closely I have some additional comments:
It would help to have a good copyedit by another person. Examples of things to look for are weasel words like "sometimes considered," clumsy wording like "apparently soon managed," overuse or redundant use of the word "also."
At one point there is a "--" that could be converted to a "—" (mdash). This form of punctuation is often misused, but I don't know the rules!
The images are great, but get a bit crowded in the area of the Cyrus Cylinder.
At one point there is a "citation needed" request which should be fulfilled if this article is headed for FA.
Usually links to other articles are not duplicated. For example there are several links to Darius the Great and its variations.
Usually an article is not placed both in a category and its subcategory. This article is in both "Category:Achaemenid dynasty" and "Category:Monarchs of Persia." Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, it should be in one or the other.
Wow, you are very thorough; thanks again! I've given it another copyedit, but I agree, it would probably be best to find a third-party to give it a look. I've gotten rid of anything I could find that was redundant or could be considered weasel words (with the exception of two "considered" statements which are attributed). I got rid of the Persepolis image, as it wasn't necessary. Now that section is much less crowded. I know the references section is unusual, but I think it's the best way to manage it; if there's a better solution, I'll gladly do it. ♠ SG→Talk17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A final suggestion. I think for FA status, the three references in the lead section need to be moved down into the appropriate sections within the main article. Also, it looks like the first note should be broken into two different notes because it is about two separate topics. If you make these changes, I am prepared to nominate it for Good Article status. JonHarder13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have to be moved? I can't really see it passing FA without the Cylinder refs being there. The line about the Cyrus Cylinder being called "the first declaration of human rights" is not accepted by everyone, so I had to source it. I've broken up the first ref, though. On another note, Enceladus (moon), which was recently "Today's FA" a few days ago, has a ref in the opening paragraph – as does Final Fantasy X, from the day before. ♠ SG→Talk17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong; I thought they complained about that. My preference is still to see them moved down into the part of the text that expands on those particular topics. JonHarder18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I checked it out, and I couldn't find anything about it. The first reference (Old Persian name) isn't noted anywhere else in the text, so I left it up there at the top. The two about the Cyrus Cylinder are left there to avoid an NPOV issue. I think I will leave it as is, but I will keep your note in mind. If the issue is raised in the GA or FA noms, it will only take a moment to change. What do you think about that plan? ♠ SG→Talk20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did more checking too, it is not guideline, but this discussion shows the various sides of the issue. My preference aligns with those that believe the lead material will be expanded farther down in the article and that is a better place to put the inline citations. I imagine there are cases where parts of the lead can't easily be expanded and it's redundant and clumsy just to repeat the same sentence in the main body. If the citation is moved down among the expanded material, there shouldn't be a NPOV problem. Anyway, that's my preference, but do what works for you and what you think is best for the article. It looks like leaving them in the lead should not get in the way of GA or FA. JonHarder21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, after reading that discussion, I have to agree with you. It looks like a good idea to move it out of the lead. If anyone complains, I'll just tell them where to look for the ref and point them to that discussion. However, I have not moved the Old Persian ref, as there is nowhere to move it to. ♠ SG→Talk22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few copyedits; feel free to revert if you don't like the result. Some points:
Per WP:CAPTION, some FA reviewers' prefer that captions be complete sentences. Take advantage of this to add information that reinforces your article.
"Several issues of Cyrus' early life are unclear: whether he was born in 576 BC or 590 BC, and whom he took for his wife." That's two issues, not several, and I don't understand why Cyrus' wife is an issue of his early years. Was it customary to be betrothed as a child? If so, that should be made clear; if not, you should probably mention his wife later in the article.
"they further note his marriage to Princess Mandane of Media, a daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes, and Princess Aryenis of Lydia; Cyrus II was the result of this union." It's not immediately clear that Cyrus II is Cyrus the Great. Also... and I hesitate to write this... it rather sounds as though Cyrus was the product of a ménage à trois. (Come to think of it, that would explain how Gilgamesh could be two-thirds god... but I digress.) ;-)
The section called "Personal life" really isn't about his personal life. How about "Dynastic history" or "Family history"?
The section called "Early life" really isn't about his early life. How about "Legendary birth"?
"Arsames defected to Cyrus" doesn't sound right. Who is he defecting from — himself? How about "Arsames abdicated his rulership of Persia and pledged allegiance to Cyrus"? Also, it's not clear whether Arsames' son Hystaspes became king in his stead, or whether Cyrus took control of Persia. If the former, then how about ""Arsames relinquished rulership of Persia to his son Hystaspes and pledged allegiance to Cyrus. Hystaspes' son, Darius, would later become Darius the Great, Shahanshah of Persia"? If the latter, do we have any idea why a king would willingly hand over power, especially to someone not his own son?
"Several years later, when Astyages discovered that his grandson was still alive, he ordered that the son of Harpagus be beheaded and served to his father on a dinner platter. Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus, who by then was living again with his noble and biological parents..." This is confusing. It's not clear at first that "the son of Harpagus" doesn't refer to the adopted Cyrus. It's not clear whether this grisly order was carried out (we know there was legendary precedent for the king's orders being circumvented, after all). The fact that Cyrus is now living with his noble parents again is a big, unexplained, unexpected jump in the story. If these concerns simply reflect the ambiguity of the source material, that's fine, but there should be some way to organize this information into a more linear narrative.
The "Kings of Persia" section seems to shift between legend (third-hand reports with mythical elements) to documentable fact ("In 559 BC...") and back again, so that I'm unclear how much of this section is history and how much is myth. Again, that may be an inherent difficulty with the source material, but try to give the reader some sense of which facts are considered reliable history.
"Cyrus led the Persians and his armies." Were the armies not Persian?
"conquered the Median Empire in the sixth year of Nabonidus' rule." This makes it seem as though Nabodinus were the ruler of Medes rather than Babylon.
Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the title of the article. You can probably make a case that "Cyrus cylinder" is a valid exception to this rule, but how about changing "Cyrus' wars" to "Military campaigns"?
"Cyrus defeated Nabonidus." If you haven't yet mentioned that Nabodinus was ruler of Babylon, you should do so here. The reader shouldn't have to click a blue link to know who he is and why he matters.
"(written before any new conquests could have been made other than Egypt)," This parenthetical phrase impedes flow, is tricky to parse, and doesn't contribute to your main point. Why not remove it?
The "Administration of the Empire" section is really too short to merit its own section. Could it be combined with the following section as "Politics"? That will also eliminate the problem of having the word "Cyrus" in a section header, which is against the MOS. Better yet, move both of these sections into the "Legacy" section below. You seem to be covering related material twice.
"Cyrus died in battle, but the Achaemenid empire was to reach its zenith long after his demise." The second half of this sentence impedes flow and has nothing to do with the section topic, Cyrus' death. I'm moving it to the "Legacy" section, unless you prefer otherwise.
Thanks for taking the time to make those changes! As for your suggestions, I agree with them all to some extent. Reading that "marriage" line made me chuckle; it's very easy to understand your own writing, but reading it a second time, I realized where the problem lied.
You know what, I originally started making those few small changes you suggested, but as I went along, I kept adding more, and more, until... Well, you be the judge of what happened: [6]. I have to thank you for getting me in the mood to do that, but I should also make some sort of threat, as the article probably has even more problems now!
Oh, I'm also aware that the article is in desperate need of sourcing for all the new information that was added. I'll get around to this soon, but if you could make note of any statements that you feel must have referencing, it'd make everything much easier. And one final note, I know Gaumata redirects to Smerdis of Persia; I plan on breaking the article in two later on, as they are not the same person. ♠ SG→Talk08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in early life is of a symbol that isn't talked about in that section, so it really doesn't help with furthering our understanding of Cyrus. Also, in Babylonia, the picture, while nice, and peripherally related to the section in that it depicts someone mentioned in that section, might be better if it were replaced with a map showing all the lands that came under Cyrus's rule, to help illustrate for readers the sentence "Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet" plange06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I'm rather hard-pressed to find free images of Cyrus. The Faravahar image is relevant to the article, but not to that section in particular — though, he was raised with Zoroastrianism, and the image starts in the "background" section. As for the Nabonidus image, again, you're right; we do need a map, but there is only one map I've been able to find that shows the Achaemenid Empire during Cyrus' rule, and it lacks proper copyright information. However, I'm going to see what I can do about making a map later today, using one of the maps from Wikipedia:Maps. ♠ SG→Talk08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've tried my hand at map making, so I've replaced the Nabonidus image with the map I made. Take a look, let me know how you feel. Of course, first of all, this is my first shot at making a map, and second, I am still partially drunk. I should probably also add the locations of each of the cities mentioned in the article (ie. Sippar, Babylon, Sardes, Pasargadae) instead of only those few. ♠ SG→Talk08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And I responded to your inquiry on your talk page. So, as it is now, do you think the article would make it through the featured article nomination process, or should I wait for more people to chime in on the peer review? ♠ SG→Talk04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peirigill again. A few thoughts on your re-write:
"Faravahar, the symbol of Zoroastrianism, which influenced Cyrus to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of Persia." This isn't a complete sentence. Also, I don't understand what "non-imposing religion" means. I've changed it, but, like with the map image, I'm really not sure what to replace the caption with. Any suggestions?
"Little is known of Cyrus' early years, as the sources detailing that part of his life are few, and many have been damaged or lost." Seems contradictory: if there were few sources, how could many have been lost? It's not clear to me whether there were never many sources to begin with, or whether many used to exist but only few are extant. Changed.
"According to most sources, he was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." Also ambiguous: do most sources give both dates, or do most sources say either one date or the other? The simplest fix is simply "He was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." Done.
"While Herodotus' description may be a legend, it does give insight into the figures surrounding Cyrus the Great's early life." Is this really a separate paragraph? Moved.
"Like his predecessors before him." Before him is redundant.
"Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people, who were then in a state of vassalage to the Medes, to revolt, which occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC." This flows awkwardly. The phrase "to revolt" is especially jarring. How about "Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people to revolt against their feudal lords, the Medes. This event, which is corroborated by other historical testimony, occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC." I'm suggesting this additional clause to help distinguish between accepted fact and its legendary trappings; please revise it if it's inaccurate. I changed that paragraph a bit, so it should be more concise now.
"However, it is very likely that both Harpagus and Cyrus rebelled..." "Very likely" seems POV, unless the citation uses those words. How about "likely" instead of "very likely"?
"due to their dissatisfaction with Astyages' policies, rather than the story introduced by Herodotus." Awkwardly worded; it certainly wasn't Herodotus' story that influenced them. Can you find a way to say "rather than the events of the story as related by Herodotus" that isn't clumsy? Patched this up.
"Cyrus led his armies to capture Ecbatana, and effectively conquered the Median Empire." Either remove the comma, or leave the comma but replace "and effectively conquered" with "effectively conquering." This suggestion was effectively conquered in 2006.
"The approximate extent of the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus' rule, superimposed on modern borders. Persia became the largest empire the world had seen yet." Can you make these both complete sentences? Also, "had seen yet" trips me up; how about "had ever seen"? Changed "had seen yet," but I'm not sure how else to write the caption. Got any suggestions?
"Cyrus besieged Croesus in his capital, Sardes." "His" is tricky here, since it could mean Cyrus' or Croesus' capital. It's especially tricky because you've just said that the Lydians attacked the Achaemenid Empire, which implies that the fighting is happening on Cyrus' turf. "The Lydian capital" is better, but not great, since that makes you repeat the word "Lydian" twice in quick succession. Can you think of an alternative wording? Done.
"Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers was to begin." "Was to begin" is redundant. Just say, "Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers, Harpagus advised Cyrus..." Done.
"And indeed, the Lydian cavalry became useless." "And indeed" feels awkward to me. "Became useless" is not strong. How about "The strategy worked; the Lydian cavalry was routed"?
"the Lydian cavalry became useless and Cyrus defeated Croesus at Pterium, captured him, and occupied his capital at Sardis, conquering the Lydian kingdom in 546 BC." Too much info in one sentence. Split this into two sentences. Reworded and split; better now?
"Towards the end of September of 539 BC." The repeated "of" might be a problem. How about "In 539 BC, towards the end of September"? Done.
"defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens." Is "by the citizens" redundant? Who else would have been involved in an uprising? Good point.
"defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens. With Opis under their power, the Persians took control of the vast canal system of Babylonia." Even if you remove "by the citizens," we have a problem with the word "their." It's not clear until later in the sentence that "their" refers to the Persians rather than the citizens or the Babylonians. I know, it's nitpicky, but this will be questioned in FA. How about "Having conquered Opis"? How about "with Opis subjugated?"
"which he had not paid a visit to for several years." "Which he had not visited for years" would be better. Done.
"and soon fled to Babylon, which he had not paid a visit to for several years. (new paragraph) Two days later, on October 12, Gubaru's troops entered the capital, Babylon," How about telling us Babylon is the capital the first time it's mentioned, rather than the second? Done.
I'm not sure about the wikilinks on dates like "October 12." WP:DATE says that you should link month+day, month+day+year, but not years or months alone (unless relevant).
"According to the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great, Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet." That phrase "had seen yet" is still tripping me up. How about "had yet seen" or "had ever seen"? Done.
"At the end of Cyrus' rule, the Achaemenid Empire stretched from Asia Minor and Judah in the west, as far as the Indus River in the east." You've linked "from" to "as far as," and these don't really go together. "From Asia Minor and Judah in the west to the Indus River in the east" is probably the simplest fix. Done.
"Cyrus Cylinder" is an apparent violation of WP:MOS for two reasons: only the first word should be capitalized, and the article title shouldn't appear in a section header. I think this is a legitimate exception, but be prepared to defend this. I'm still not convinced that the "Rise and rule" section shouldn't simply be renamed "Military campaigns," and the "Cyrus Cylinder" information be moved to the Politics subsection of the Legacy section. I don't think proper nouns apply to the heading rule. Regardless, I've moved it to "Politics" and renamed the section as you originally requested. However, I renamed it to "Rise and military campaigns," otherwise the TOC looks strange, jumping from his early life to his military campaigns. In all honesty, I prefer the way it was previously, but I think you're the better judge here.
"Tomyris ordered the body of Cyrus to be found, and then dipped his head in blood to avenge the death of her son at his hands. (new paragraph) He was buried in the city of Pasargadae," There's a small chance of confusion: was it Cyrus or Tomyris' son who was buried? Safer to say "Cyrus was buried." Reworded.
"Cyrus was distinguished equally as a statesman and as a soldier. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, he was able to make his newly conquered subjects into enthusiastic supporters. Due to the stong political infrastructure he created, the Achaemenid empire endured and prospered long after his demise." This is POV unless citations are given, and even then, words like "distinguished," "generosity," "instead of repression," "enthusiastic," "strong," and "prospered" paint a one-sided picture. Surely the man had some weaknesses or detractors? A dissenting view doesn't need equal time or equal weight, but it should get some coverage. I've sourced it and thrown out a few words. If you can find a good dissenting view on Cyrus that can be sourced, I'd be grateful.
"Koresh (Hebrew for Cyrus) is a common name for streets in Israel and is a relatively common Israeli family name." This needs a citation. Also, try to eliminate the weasel wording of "relatively common." Can you give a hard fact to back that up, like "1,500 Israeli families are named 'Koresh'"? I found a source for this statement, but the source doesn't back it up. (80% of all statistics are made up.)
The caption "Cyrus the Great allowing Hebrew pilgrims to return to and rebuild Jerusalem" is not a complete sentence. Changed, but I don't know if it's good enough.
"The Cyropaedia of Xenophon, based on the latter's knowledge of the Great King's upbringing, was an influential political treatise in ancient times, and again during the Renaissance." The fact that the Cyropaedia existed might pass without a citation, but the claim that it was influential needs one. I've changed it to "admired" and gave it a source.
"The English philosopher Sir Thomas Browne named his 1658 discourse after the benevolent ruler. Entitled The Garden of Cyrus, it may well be a Royalist criticism upon the autocratic rule of Oliver Cromwell." "Entitled The Garden of Cyrus" belongs more in the first sentence than the second one. "It may well be" is a weasel word; is it or isn't it? This claim needs a citation. I don't know why I kept that, it was in there since I began editing the article.
I'm not certain, but I think the references are supposed to be alphabetized. By title or author name? Originally they were sorted by print year, but now they're ordered by title.
I've replied to each of your list items above. And trust me, nitpicking is good. Some of those people over at FA will jump at you for anything. ♠ SG→Talk00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the captions to all but the top image to sentences, and tweaked the captions about the Jews and the Cylinder. (I'm assuming Cyrus didn't do the inscribing himself, which the earlier version implied.) Feel free to revert or modify as you wish. Peirigill20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Well, User:Amizzoni has brought up a couple of issues. Once we get that settled, I'm sending this article straight to FAC. Thanks so much for all your help! ♠ SG→Talk11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done extensive work on this article and would greatly appreciate some imput as to further improvement. (Thanks) omtay3803:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A section on the school's history would be useful. I'm also wary of that School Chest image's use of under-18 students without parental consent. Is that an issue here? --SparqMan16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the history section, i've been looking for information. I didn't think about the image and your probably right. Will remove it now. --omtay3816:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The detail on the theaters is great (the new wing finished just after I graduated), but maybe excessive. That section almost dominates the articles, as is. --SparqMan16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, however, I feel rather than removing content from the theatres section, the other sections should have information added to be as detailed as the theatre section. --omtay3808:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) There should be a References or Notes section instead of just external links. 2) History should be before Campus. 3) Notable student organizations should be added into a Student Life section and combined with Annual activities. 4) Notable alumni not nearly comprehensive enough. Students section should be renamed like Profile or something. 5) All sections need major expansion. See Stuyvesant High School and Plano Senior High School. -Bluedog42306:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is 149KB long. It is excessive and keeps growing due to its vague subject. It had an AfD and was kept. This article needs input, badly. -- Wikipedical03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikipedical,
Some suggestions are to explain in greater detail what the fourth wall is in the lead of the page. And to look into some atypical formatting so that list is easier to read. For example you might consider making the titles of the works larger than the description of how the effect was broken, placing the two on separate lines and increasing the paragraph separation between different titles. Are you planning to work on this article yourself?
This is a glossary page, a companion to music of Italy and its subarticles. There are no pictures, but I don't think they're necessary here. I plan on creating a redirect from every item on the list to this page, unless an article already exists. I'd especially like input from Italian speakers. Tuf-Kat02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the referencing inconsistent and confusing. About 34 terms are referenced (3), the New Grove Encyclopedia, but other terms are referenced individually with apparently identical referencing: (11, 12, 18, 20, 27). Others are similar: (19, 22, 23) and (26). At least for me, it would be easier to see references for New Grove 637-680, Garland 604-625, Garland 860-864, and Alessio 189-201, and let some of the terms have two or more distinct reference marks. Gimmetrow23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that has one source is cited with a multi-use reference, everything cited by more than one has its own footnote. I like your idea, but I thought it was considered bad form to have more than one footnote in one spot. Tuf-Kat03:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's common in Harvard-style referencing. In numbered-style multiple reference marks conveys information that the statement has multiple independent sources. Gimmetrow17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tuf-Kat. I think it's potentially a useful list, though I am confused (nothing new for me!) about overlap between this and the article on Italian musical terms used in English, the discussion page for which indicates some debate about that article, itself, being redundant or about to be merged with another--or something. In any event, I added a link to one of the terms--maggio drammatico. Do you want additions to the list--dynamic and tempo markings such as allegro, forte, etc. etc.?
Also, the lead sentence might indicate that such terms are not just useful in the music of Italy, but elsewhere since it was and still is common to use Italian terms. Somewhere, a short list of common abbreviations might be useful; that is, f for forte, p for piano, mf for mezzoforte. An interesting point of trivia--for the sake of completeness--is that such abbreviations have by now been "foreignized"--that is, rendered un-Italian. For example, the abbreviation pp stands for pianissimo, grammatically a superlative in Italian, meaning "as soft as possible". You can't play any softer than that, yet Tschaikovsky has a section in the 6th symphony that is marked pppppp. Anything more than two is unpronouncable in Italian. There are also many examples of the ff--fortissimo--being upped to fff and fff. Jeffmatt06:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this page is supposed to be about terms used to describe "Italian music", not Italian words used to describe music. So, I don't think stuff like "allegro" should be there because they're not primarily used to describe Italian music -- that's incidental to the English language, because they're used to describe any kind of music. That's really better at Italian musical terms used in English. Admittedly, there's some overlap, but I think it's two useful, and separate, ideas. Tuf-Kat01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the main thing I am looking for an Italian speaker to help with is clearing up the Italian language. Many of the items begin with what appears to be a preposition (e.g. a voca diritta, alla metitora) or a word meaning "song" or "dance" (e.g. canti alla stesa, ballo di Mantova). Are these things necessary? Are any items listed multiple times due to variations in display? Should they be alphabetized under alla and canti or metitora and stesa (or alla stesa)? Tuf-Kat01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion even among Italian librarians on this (I'm married to one!). Italian-language music glossaries are as likely to list, for example, a capella under A as under C, as in capella (coro a). In your case, all of the entries in the A section that have the preposition+article compound alla--alla cepranese, for example-- (alla means "like a" or "as a") could be listed by the noun, as well--C, in this case. Since the list is relatively short and since English-speakers (and many Italian speakers) are likely to look under A first, I suggest (with concurrence from two native sources) leaving the A section as is. It is not confusing or incorrect as it stands. It does leave you with the problem that an English-speaker might conclude that the whole noun is alla cepranese--as in "They're playing an alla cepranese" instead of, correctly, "They're playing a cepranese. I don't see a way around that problem unless you want to move those entries to their repsective letters and say something like cepranese, alla: played in the manner of a cepranese, which is ackward. I think you can leave it the way it is. Another solution is to eliminate the compound altogether and simply list cepranese: a form of multi-part song in Lazio. Those prep+article compounds are not necessary, to answer your question. Maybe that's the best solution of all. If you decide to do that, do not eliminate alla between terms--that is, in canti alla stesa, for example. That alla is different and is an integral part of the description of the term.
On your list, check alla'asprese. It is almost certainly all'asprese; the apostrope is meant to stand for the first A. Also, Lazio is the Italian noun for the area. If it is accepted English to use geographical names as adjectives, leave it. If it isn't, I suggest saying "in Lazio"(instead of Latian, which might confuse readers. You correctly have Calabrian and Sardinian. Might as well be consistent.)
"Addio padre" is the name of one particular song, I think, compposed in 1916 (during WW1). You have it as "A post-war political song," which makes it sound like a generic reference to many songs--a type of song-- after WW2.
For consistency, if the Italian noun is singular, make the English singular; if plural, plural. That is: ballo is singular, so it should read "ballo di baraben: a ritual dance," and not "Ritual dances". See also under C. Canti is plural and should be rendered as "songs" and not "song". Canto is the singular--song. The same with canzone. That's singular--song. Also, a ciaramella has a double-reed, not single. That is, it's a folk oboe, which is a double-reed instrument. Jeffmatt07:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. The more I think about it, the more I think the last solution is the best. That is, listing the name without the prep+article compound. Cheers from Naples. Jeffmatt12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so for two reasons: I hope to add a bit more about these terms in the near future. Plus, terminology means "The vocabulary of technical terms used in a particular field, subject, science, or art", which seems appropriate for this article. Tuf-Kat03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs helpful suggestions and constructive criticism. Mostly, the later parts of the article talking about the 1990's and later need some help. It'd be great to see what other people think. Kether8323:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article really needa a lot of help, it has been on FAC two times, both of which have failed, and it seems full but there seems also to be a lot of things to do, please help make it better, cheers —Minun(Spiderman)19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the very in-Universe perspective. Pikachu is a major cultural icon, so needs to be handled as such. "Cultural impact" needs major expansion and probably moving up the article. This article needs a lot of work before FAC. —Celestianpowerháblame17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to get this article up to Featured Article standard, and believe that so far I've been pretty successful: it's been approved as a Good Article, after having had a complete re-write by myself last month. I nominated it as a Featured Article Candidate recently, but the nomination failed - primarily because there weren't enough references, and some sections did not have enough detail. I was holding back on some of the detail because I believed that Featured Articles had to be limited in length to max 30k, but was since told that a large article was not a barrier to being featured. I have re-written some things, improved them, and added many references - even going to the extent of buying a hard-copy book in order to use it for offline reference. I believe that the article is excellent, and should be featured - but before I re-submit it for candidacy, I request a Peer Review so that perhaps others may see things which I don't. Ten heads are better than one, when it comes to these things :)
Please give me your feedback on this article's readiness to be re-submitted as a Featured Candidate. I have addressed all the addressable points in the first FA nomination, but want more people to give their opinions before I try again. Thanks! EuroSongtalk14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do accept my apology for not replying to your request for review earlier. I have actually injured my hand and typing takes me a lot more time, which in turn made me develop a singificant WikiBacklog... Furthermore, I want to express my deep appreciation for the extensive efforts you have undertaken to further improve this article and your dedication to this task. Please, however, note that it is my opinion that all articles should be appraised against the same criteria, and not the author's efforts. Some topics are simply broader and tougher to write a comprehensive and all-round-good article on, and therefore will require much more effort from the editors. On the other hand, I believe that the satisfaction from finally reaching the FA target with such articles is greater. Let me review this section by section:
Lead section
I am still not convinced that Al-Jazeera and the other site I commented on the last time are the best references for ESC viewing figures. I think EBU released some official info as to the ESC viewership this year, and more historic data can perhaps be found in the EBU archive.
Even though the participants are commonly referred to as "countries", even during the show and by the organisers, the lead section should explains who the participants actually are and what is meant by "countries" (e.g. brodcasters, jury/televoting etc.)
The last paragraph does not fit in well, I believe - first of all, it doesn't really summarize any section of the text, secondly, the current lineup displayed there is quite disputable (were Mocedades really such big format international superstars like ABBA?), and you will have fans perpetually "promoting" their favorites by adding them to the list (e.g. Lordi's or Anna Vissi's main claim to international fame is actually appearing on ESC rather than anything else). It's going to be controversial, I'd simply do away with it, as it doesn't really provide the casual reader with much insight into the contest.
Origins
Very good section, as it was before. I really appreciate the realiable-looking references, though I actually haven't checked them thoroughly... I'd say the middle paragraph could use a reference too - even a trivial one - to keep up with the standard.
Format
This section could still use some development. It doesn't read to well, especially the first paragraph. It's more like a collection of facts dumped together - I think for the casual reader the description might not be that informative. It would be sensible to explain the contest format by discussing the idea behind it.
Again "countries" should be explained.
Postcards and interval acts deserve are kind-of mentioned by the way, while the fact that the event is opened by a presenter is highlighted - I guess the accents are a bit misplaced. I guess presenters, postcards and interval acts all deserve short descriptions - minisections or just paragraphs.
Sadly, no references in this section.
Participation
Another rather good section here, but insufficient references! What in the world is the "European Broadcasting Area"?
Rules
The introductory sentences are both pretty tautologic to me and quite redundant.
Some "hosting rules" and all "other rules" are not referenced. The existance of "other notable rules" section makes me wonder whether there are any non-notable rules.
It is still not explained why would BBC or, in one case, NOS step in as the organiser when the winner declined.
For clarity and better reading I would start the "live music" section with the rules about vocals and then proceed to the discussion of the orchestra. There is no mention of the countries supplying their conductors along with singers in the "orchestra period".
Again, I would start the language section with saying that "songs can now be sung in any language" and only then discuss the historic divertions from the rule. This section is also quit choppy and there is no explanation as to why would the rules go back and forth, and the perceived better chances of songs sung in English. I am also not that happy that there is no mention of imaginary and rare languages any longer - I know somebody was fussy about the rumblings on what language could UK use, but the rest of that section was perfectly legitimate.
Broadcasting rules - reference needed for the rule, as well as formal consequences for the broadcaster. It would also be interesting to discuss, here or elsewhere, NON-participating brodcasters who show the Contest, like the mentioned one from Jordan, or I recently heard about even an Australian one!
I remember Lys Assia said in an interview [7] that in the beginning all the artists, incl. composer, lyricist, singers etc. had to be from the country they represented. It would be good to try to dig out how it was applied in practice and when the rule was abolished.
Selection procedures
Missing references again :(
First and last paragraphs belongs in the previous section
I believe a more systematic discussion of the preselection events/procedures in participating countries and their evolution would be better here - like the influence of Melodifestivalen and later Operacion Triunfo on other countries, the prevailing types of preselections and their historic development (like when did the televoting era begin).
Voting
The first paragraph is one of the few places in text where phrases like "the system which people are most familiar with" appears - this is something of a weasel phrase, and as such statement doesn't really change much, I would avoid that to fend off criticism during prospective FA candidacy.
Missing references again, I am especially interested in how was the televoting experiment a success (I mean how was the "successfulness" determined?)
Are there any countries other than Monaco that still use juries? Is there a country that uses a mixed system?
The first sentence of the "presentation of votes" subsection might not be understand correctly by readers unfamiliar with the show.
I recall seeing a footage of all juries sitting in the studio where the contest was staged and just giving out votes live, so I think it wasn't given by telephone everytime before satellite transmission.
I think that countries have been giving out votes by order of performance, and later when also countries whose songs didn't participate in the final were voting, in alphabetical order, and only this year a special draw of "voting order" was introduced.
I think that Scandinavian countries boycotted the 1970 ESC because of the tie, and this is why EBU was forced to devise tie-break rules.
Discussing what-if in case of the 1991 tie-break is unnecessary.
Expansion of the Contest
First paragraph belongs in the "Participation" section, the second in the "Format" section.
The remaining three subsections are actually rules and belong in this section.
Did I mention insufficient referencing? :D
Semi-Final
Oh, OK, now I understand, more or less, some structuring peculiarities here. I have a proposition of a general rule that would make the article more reader-friendly - discuss the event as is today, and then proceed to go through the historic developments. For example, the semi should be discussed in the format section, then the rules of qualification with the historic perspective in the rules section.
Although I think it never happened, if one of the Big 4 was in the top ten, they wouldn't be counted and the following country, like 11th etc, would gain the right to go straight to the Final next year - this should be clarified.
Hosting
The second and third paragraphs desperately need references!
Otherwise, a very nice section.
Comentators
This section unnecessairly breaks up the nice flow between "Hosting" and "Eurovision Week". I would move it somewhere upwards.
I guess presenters, interval acts, postcards, composers, conductors, lyricists etc. could be considered for such sections too.
It just occured to me, and I think it is not mentioned anywhere (or perhaps I am that unconscious at 4 AM) that the prize was actually originally meant more for the authors of the song than the artist - somehow this got lost along the way, I still remember the composer of Sweden 1999 getting the prize on stage (a memorable moment for some other reason ;) ). This year, Mr. Lordi got the award - was he the composer and lyricist, or were the authors deprived of the prize sometime earlier?
Eurovision week
I have commented on it already the last time, it is still a very nice section, even though it lacks references (which obviously needs to be rectified). The last subsection is a little choppy.
Winners
The first paragraph actually only pertains to the artists, so it should go into that section.
Other than the lack of references, another really good section!
Criticism
The discussion of musical styles and typical performance styles thorugh the years deserves a separate section, not only devoted to criticisms.
Block and political voting should be discussed alongside voting in general, it is not only a subject of criticism, it's simply a matter of fact. For many people, it is an interesting feature rather than a reason for criticism. So, confining this to a "criticism" section only narrows the issue unnecessairly.
I am, in general, opposed to "criticisms" sections, as their existence might imply that there are no "criticisms" of the subjects whose articles do not contain such sections, and also this relegates the comments on some various issues to an obscure section at the end of the article, rather than them being located directly where the issues are discussed. I believe it is more natural for them to be discussed there. For example the criticism of different entry selection systems is more or less discussed in that section, and I believe it is much more comprehensible for the common reader that way.
Moreover, the "Criticisms" sections can be accused of being attempts by the editor to smuggle some POV by downplaying them or supplying counterarguments. This can be an obstacle during FA candidacy.
To sum it up - the article has surely improved and is getting really close to the FA status. I understand that it took some very tiresome work and it can really be disheartening to read that people still have some many gripes about it. But please don't dismiss them, as they will be popping out later during FAC. I believe you need more editors to help you, I am sorry I can't contribute that much at that moment, as it already took a sleepless night to type all that with the fingers I have available at that moment :D I think you might ask guys who put together fan sites like esctoday for assistance - if not with editing articles directly, than at least with helping finding out some peculiarities, like the ones with the rules, and sources. I already have some experience with asking enthusiasts of other subjects for help, and I can tell you it works (not 100%, but still). Again, I want to reassure you that I want to see this article become an FA as much as you do, and I really appreciate your really extensive efforts in that direction! I hope you won't let fatigue get you so close to the finish line! I hope to be able to be more helpful soon. Regards, Bravada, talk - 02:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to Bravada's comments
Hi Bravada, thank you very much - again - for your comments. I especially appreciate it because you obviously spent a long time reviewing the article, and it must have taken you even longer to type this all out - especially with an injured hand! I hope it gets better soon.
I am replying to your comments here below, because you used numbered lists in your critique - as you did in the previous FAC. In order to preserve those numbers, I was forced to write in bold, because if I were to have started new lines with indents after each comment (which would have been prefereble), then the numbered lists would have gone wrong. So.. here goes:
Lead section
Re: viewing figures, perhaps you could help me? I find references on the EBU's site to "over 100 million viewers", but nothing other than that. I do know that people have quoted the figures as vastly higher than that, however - once I heard "one billion viewers", but I think this was just a poor guess. However, the figure of 600 million has been heard fairly often. Perhaps the Aljazeera site is not the best source, but it is a source - at least to show the reader, and to back up the article's statement that these figures have been quoted. As the article says, the figures are quoted.. it is not giving a definitive figure, simply because there are a lot of contradicting sources out there. There is surprisingly little of use that I can find on the EBU's site. If you can find something better, please let me know - or edit it yourself :) - Aljazeera is actually a good reference: it's the largest news network which spans Arab countries. Just because it's not European, that doesn't mean it's not relevant :)
Re labelling participants as "countries". Hmm... ok, I shall think about this, and try to make it clearer through the whole article. - Addressed
Re: list of stars to have graced the stage. You're quite right about this list being open to edits by fans wishing to "promote" their favourite artists into it. It has already been happening. However, I do think that there should at least be some mention, in the article's lead, of some of the biggest stars who have participated in the Contest. As the WP guidelines say, "Don't hide the important facts". To the casual reader who does not know much about the Contest, it is important that they realise exactly how big the thing is: that it's not just some obscure talent show full of nobodies. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative, to be included in the lead?Addressed: removed this list from the lead. Replaced with a mention of musical styles.
Origins
Re: reference in the middle paragraph. Hmm, ok... I shall include one. - Addressed
Format
Re: discussing "the idea behind it" in the "Format" section. Isn't the idea behind the Contest discussed already in the "Origins" section? In this Format section, I am trying to mention the things which have always been the case - the bare-bone basics of the Contest. The things quintessential to the idea of the Contest which, if changed, would make it no longer the Eurovision Song Contest. More minor format developments, such as the way in which voting is conducted exactly, and the presence of the semi-final, have changed over the years. I have tried to make this "basic format" section static, to show what is the case every single year, no matter what.
Re: countries. Shall be looked at. - Clarified
Re: weight given to presenter, postcards and interval acts. I shall think about this one.
Re: references. See my comments below about references.
Participation
Re: European Broadcasting Area. Good point. I created a (red) Wikilink to it, with the thought of sometime creating that article.. but you're right: the area should be briefly defined right here in this article. I shall address this, thank you. - Addressed and referenced.
Rules
Re: redundant introduction. That is there because all the rules I have mentioned fall into some sub-category, and without some kind of introductory sentence, the sub-heading would immediately follow the section heading, which looks a bit strange. I don't know how you feel about that. Is that acceptable? If not, then... what else should I write as an introduction to the section? - Addressed: wrote better, more relevant introduction
Re: notable rules. There are very many rules of the Contest - but many of them deal with things which are non-essential to the workings of the Contest, such as rules which specify exactly how many seconds of screen-time sponsors are allowed to display their logos, and when participating broadcasters must make a back-up recording of the transmission feed of the rehearsals, etc. I classify these as non-notable... because if they were all to be included, then we may as well have the entire text of the rules included here, mentioning every single little rule. Hmm.. Perhaps I can make a mention of this in the intro. I shall see about references. - Addressed, as above
Re: explanation of why the BBC and NOS stepped in. I shall try to find appropriate references. - Addressed and referenced
Suggestions about live music section. Thank you - I shall look into this. - Addressed
Re: language rules. I shall look into this. Thanks for reminding me about the made-up languages: a good example of where two heads are better than one, and you could think of something I forgot about :) - Addressed (still the other bit to be addressed)
Re: references and consequences for broadcaster. I shall look into this. Also - yes, thanks for reminding me about non-participating broadcasters. This definitely needs a mention. - Addressed: non-participants mentioned now in the lead. Refs made in Broadcasting Rules section. With regards to mentioning "how the rule is now" (freedom of language mentioned first), I disagree. See my note above about wanting the article to be static, and to make as few references to "this is how it is today" as possible.
Re: older requirement for participants to come from that country. Good point. I shall try to, as you say, dig out this information. - I never actually heard of a nationality restriction before I saw that interview with Lys Assia you mentioned. I tried to find any other references to it, but there are none. I then asked the Eurovision fan community if they had any references to it, and I was reminded that the German entrant in 1956 was actually Austrian - and Lys herself had entered the German final! That rather shows that there was never a rule restricting the nationality. Perhaps Lys got confused when quoting that, referring instead to some Swiss pre-selection rules? Individual countries may impose any further rules they wish, but here we are discussing the EBU's general rules. Good point: this has now been mentioned!
Selection procedures
Re: missing references. I shall have a look.. but again, see my note below.
Re: first and last paragraphs. I disagree. See my note below about rules and sections.
Re: expansion/further detail on selection procedures. Hmm... I shall give this some thought.
Re: references about televoting success. Again, I shall try to find something - but see the point below :) - Addressed. It's mentioned in the hard-copy book that it was a success
Re: juries still in use. I shall try to find out. - Can't find any reliable sources saying that any particular countries used backup juries in 2006. The rule is that televoting shall be used, anyway.. and nothing is mentioned otherwise. Backup juries are only there as a backup. The article gives this information as it stands. Nothing to address
Re: confusion of first sentence by readers unfamiliar with the show. People are supposed to be reading the article in order. If they don't, I can not be blamed for their non-understanding, when a later part of the article makes reference to something already established earlier. I presume you're talking about the bit where I mention the interval act, yes? If not, please elaborate.
Re: on-stage juries in 1973. Good point to mention, thank you :) - Addressed and referenced
Re: order of voting. Another good point. It shall be mentioned, thank you. - Addressed (and referenced!)
Re: boycott by Scandinavian countries. Thanks for reminding me. I will try and find a suitable reference for this, and include it. - Addressed and referenced.
Re: "what if" in 1991. Okay, this can be removed. - Addressed
Expansion of the Contest
Re: your proposal to move these paragraphs elsewhere
Okay, this needs a much longer reply. I very strongly disagree with you here. Technically speaking, almost everything in the article could be discussed also under other sections, as there is considerable overlap. However, the expansion of the Contest is a very big deal in its own right. The Contest was pretty stable until 1993, and only then - after there became more countries wishing to participate than there was time in the Contest for - did the rules start changing almost every year, in order to try and find the best system to solve the problem. The expansion of the Contest has been a major theme in the past 13 years of Eurovision's history. It needs its own section, including an explanation of exactly how, why and when the relevant rule and procedure changes came about. To dissolve this section, and incorporate the information into other sections would fail to highlight to the reader the importance of the theme of the Contest's expansion, and the impact which the new countries have had on it.
Semi-Final
Re: your proposed changes to the layout of the article. I'm not too sure about this. One of the things I had in mind, when I completely re-wrote the article, is that I wanted to keep it as static as possible. If the article were to be included on the proposed Wikipedia CD, for example, then I want it to remain relevant and true for as long as possible. The fact is, the rules and format of the Contest have been changing almost every year, for the past ten years! Therefore I didn't want to write an article which starts off saying "this is how the Contest is today" - and then that text would be hopelessly out-of-date a couple of years down the line. That's why I have tried, as much as possible, to focus on the basic evergreen principles of the event, which do not change over time - and the discuss the changing history under relevant, topical section headings. You'll notice that a few times I say things like "as of 2006", instead of "to date" (or similar). With this in mind, do you still propose that the article starts off by explaining how the Contest is today? When it could be included on a WP CD, and then two years later it's inaccurate?
#Re: clarification of Big-Four qualification places. Good point. Yes, I shall explain this. - Addressed
Hosting
Re: The second and third paragraphs desperately need references!. Yes, they do. I shall try to find some. - Addressed
Comentators
Re: proposed moving of section. I shall think about this. Okay.. - Moved
Re: sections on interval acts, postcards, composers, conductors, lyricists etc. Wouldn't the article then just get too bloated and/or unnecessary? I mean... what can one really say in a "lyricists" section? - Mentioned all the delegation elements in "Eurovision Week" section, alongside a referenced description of Head of Delegation. We don't need a whole separate section on composers.. any notable composers of notable songs should by mentioned in that song's article.
Re: prize going to songwriters. This is still (and has always been) the case. Mr Lordi got the award this year because he wrote the song, not because he performed it. The fact that he was also a performer is not relevant. Yes - the trophy is awarded to the winning songwriter. This never got lost along the way :) This is mentioned in the article. - Answered your question right here :) Nothing to change in the article, it's correct as it is.
Eurovision week
Re: references in this section. Please see my note about references below. How is the last subsection "choppy"? - Added references to this section
Winners
Re: first paragraph. You're right, it does only pertain to the artists. However, again - if it were not there, then there would be nothing to separate section headings. Perhaps I should then also mention something about winning countries in that paragraph.
Criticism
Re: discussion of musical styles (Addressed in lead) and typical performance styles thorugh the years. What would you write, in a separate section here? The music is vastly diverse - it's impossible to "define" a Eurovision song in an encyclopædia. Unless you want to write such things as "The first rap song in the Contest appeared as late as 1995"...
Re: "Block and political voting should be discussed alongside voting in general". Disagree. I have tried to keep the "voting" section concentrated simply on the voting procedures and presentation, as per the format and rules of the Contest. Not to go into actual examples of voting patterns. Those belong in the separate sub-article. If I were to start discussing voting patterns in the main article, then the section could be expanded to be as long as the whole rest of the article!
Re: your objection to "criticisms" sections. Where in the WP guidelines does it say the things you said? You said that their existence might imply that there are no "criticisms" of the subjects whose articles do not contain such sections. Well... there are really no notable (and certainly not referenced!) criticisms of other aspects of the Contest, are there? What would you have me include? A note about how some fans bemoan the loss of the orchestra? Such things are relatively minor, and there are no good references for such things. However, the Contest is well-known for being accused of political voting bias, and there are many references to back up this criticism.
Re: possible accusations of downplay of criticism. You seem to contradict yourself here. On one hand you're saying that having a criticisms section could be construed as downplaying them. However, in the preceding point you said it is more natural for criticisms to be discussed in their relevant sections. Surely to have a whole separate section entitled "Criticisms" serves to highlight these points! To downplay them would be to "smuggle them in" to the relevant sections.
The "see below" reply to references
I think I mentioned this in my response to the FAC points, but no-one gave me a counter reply. There is surprisingly little which has actually been published in hard-copy about Eurovision over the years (in English, anyway!). This makes it hard to find references for every little thing. I have tried my best to include decent web references for many things, but... it seems like you are picking holes in many paragraphs and sections, accusing them of having no references. Not every little statement needs references, though. Surely the purpose of references is so that any major statement of fact can be checked, if it might otherwise be disputed - or any sentence involved in the quotation of statistics. Obviously such statements as the fact that Melodifestivalen is the most-watched TV programme of the year in Sweden, do need references.. as they're bold statements, and should definitely be verifiable. As indeed I have included a reference for this. However, there are other statements which are made which are a) not bold, disputable statements and b) simply do not have published references. You say that "sadly there are no references" in the "Format" section. Well... does it need any? Which statements need references? There are no bold, questionable statements here. The "verifiability" of the format can be seen simply by watching one of the Contests! Just because there are no references in a whole section, that does not mean that the section is bad - and therefore it is a barrier to the article attaining Featured status. Perhaps the section in question simply does not need references? There are many Featured Articles which I have seen, which have very few references. See Supply and demand, for example. I do accept your point that some articles require a lot more in order to attain Featured status than others - and yes, Eurovision is a big topic which needs a lot of work. But still, it does get tiresome when the major knockbacks of a nomination come from people saying that there are not enough references. A complaint about references should only be made if someone sees a statement which surprises them, and which they may dispute, but the statement is not referenced (and therefore could have been inserted into the article by a troublemaker wishing to mislead). The entire lead section to Supply and demand contains not one single reference, although it includes several statements which could possibly be questioned.
You suggested that I use esctoday for references. Well, as I stated in the FAC, I am reluctant to use fan sites as reference points. The reason for this is simple: I am Chris Melville, webmaster of eurosong.net. I have my own unofficial fan site, and consequently, if I wanted to, I could just make up all the references I ever wished to do, by publishing anything I liked on my own site, and then using it as a reference in an encyclopædia article! I strongly believe that fan webmasters should be discouraged from using fan websites as reference points, for any article on Wikipedia. Fans - especially Eurovision fans - have a certain way of seeing things, which is rarely encyclopædic. I am discounting myself here, when writing this article, as I am writing in as encyclopædic style as I can. If I wanted to push my POV, then I would write "Eurovision is the greatest thing in the whole world" :)
So, to sum up: please do not dismiss the article simply because some paragraphs and sections do not have references per se. If there is a single, disputable statement which is unreferenced, then please let me know about it. In the Featured Articles candidates page, I see an increasing number of reviewers dismissing articles due to lack of references, without actually saying which statements need them. This is a trend that I think we should be getting away from.
And, to sum up more finally - thank you for your comments. I really do appreciate them, especially because they have been written with an injured hand! I have marked the points I will address in the article. But please respond to my other comments too. Some of the things you said, especially about layout of the article, seem to be simply your own POV, in the way that you would have written the article had it been yourself working on it recently. These are not WP guidelines, and it should not be a barrier to an article attaining featured status, just because another editor would have written it differently. I am glad that you appreciate my efforts: the article is certainly a lot better now than it was before I re-wrote it, when I had slapped a cleanup tag on it because it was in a terrible state! Thanks :) EuroSongtalk14:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hello Chris!
Nice site you've got there, though your visitors obviously know nothing about song quality - Serteb in the first place? ;)
Thanks :) Sertab's in first place because just before ESC2006, I had thousands of Turks registering and giving Turkish entries 10/10. It's a problem I need to deal with... I do allow people to vote for their own country, but only after I make them "sign" an honesty pledge which states that they will only vote with their heart according to how much they like the song, and not just support their own country. Unfortunately it looks like many people ignore it, but it's impossible for me to prove that any one individual is not voting with their heart! I'm working on it :)
OK, we've only had one review her by a person injured in more ways than one (does ego count?) and a reply and we're already over 30k! Let's get back to business...
Your ego is injured? How do? I hope it's nothing I said. Again, I do greatly appreciate your input here: it's already made the article improve a lot!
Where do I start? Ok, let's do references first:
References
I do believe an article needs references - it is the only proof it does not contain original research (it is also a good self-check). I know it's hard, tedious and annoying to have to find references for absolutely obvious stuff, but, well, that's how the whole encyclopedia thing works. The old Featured Articles are sometimes missing references, it's because WP has been evolving. If you notice one w/o references, you should probably nominate it for delisting. That said, it should probably be quite easy to find good references for Supply and demand and I feel quite guilty for not doing that now given my background...
What is your background? Are you an economist? :) At this point I'd like to draw your attention to today's FA, Final Fantasy X. See the list of references at the bottom. Over half the so-called "references" are quotes from the actual game itself. In order for the casual reader to be able to use these references to verify facts, then they would have to go and actually play the game and familiarise themselves with the characters. And this is a FA... what difference, then, to simply make use of such references as "Watch the Eurovision Song Contest and you'll see!"? I could easily just say such things. Final Fantasy X is good enough to be a FA when half the references are self-references.
As concerns ESC fansites, there are many, but some are better than others. ESCtoday seems quite professionally edited and I have even learned the guy behind it is now employed by the EBU itself to revamp the official Eurovision site. If you have a problem with a reference, I think this might be a good bet, so many sources actually cite it - I even see your own site is using their news feeds!
Yes, Sietse (the webmaster) has been offered a job with the EBU, which is great for him. However, there is one caveat I should mention. ESCtoday is indeed a very good site, and the editors do a lot of good work. It also looks very polished and professional, with slick graphics. However, a lot of the time, the English used is a bit dodgy. The writing style is also often somewhat less-than-formal, with sensationalist exclamation marks peppered around the place, and this is not exactly what one would hope for when seeking a formal reference. Such words as "newsitems" do not exist in English. You see, I put a great deal of importance in correct English, and much of my activity on Wikipedia involves correcting mistakes. Therefore I am reluctant to refer to sources which are not written as I would wish them to be. I have also come across several facts referenced at partyvision.co.uk: a site which could have been used as a reference, but I decided not to because it does not have the look and the feel of a formal, reliable source (even though the information is correct).
But ultimately the solution I tried to suggest to you is to turn to people who run really information-rich sites to chip in their knowledge and years of devotion to ESC to help you find references (and perhaps also enrich the article with more info). I think it's always better to get some help, and I think at least some of them can help you immensely with this article.
Hmm. How much bigger can the article get? It's already 53k. I have expanded it a lot, after you told me that there was no barrier on FAs being over 30k. However, surely there must be some reasonable limit. I mean, if there were really no limits then I could write ten times the amount which is currently there, giving an extremely detailed complete history of the Contest! But that's what sub-articles are for. In the main article, I believe that a concise and informative overview of the whole Contest should be given, including as much detail as it required in each of the sections to leave the reader feeling that they have a complete understanding of what the ESC is and how it works. Matters such as detailed voting patterns - who gives 12 points to who else most frequently, etc - do not belong in the main article
I finished renovating this article and hope to nominate it to featured article status. However, I'm not sure if it's good enough to nominate. Please provide any comments. Thank you --Aleenf107:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aleen. I have taken the liberty of moving the Badminton item from the Biography section to the Unclassified section. Good luck. Bob BScar2362509:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is yet good enough to nominate. A distinct weakness is the list of strokes; I've expanded this and intend to add an accompanying tactical context section, and possibly a section about advanced strokes/skills. Some more thought needs to go into the structure of the article too (what information goes where), and whether the article should be split into separate articles. --Mike Hopley00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the present form it is not good enough to nominate for FA status. There is a lot of good information but it is let down by poor writing and balance. It needs copyediting throughout.
Some quick comments:
Introduction should ideally summarize the whole article, not just the rules
'General description' section is unnecessary - it covers informmation that is covered in more depth in the rest of the article. This should be summarized in the introduction and dropped.
Style could do with some tweaking, there are examples of odd phrasing throughout. A quick selection:
'Badminton champion Fu Haifeng' - either say what he is champion of or leave it out
'Badminton is often compared to tennis' - 'contrasted' would be better here as that is what the rest of the paragraph does (although you have already compared the equipment in the preceding paragraph)
'The traditional scoring system in badminton history involves 15 points' - 'traditional' is fine, no need to add 'history', 'involves' is a strange choice.
'or called "setting".' - what?
'The pair will serve the shuttlecock like singles rules which base to their points' - what?
'Badminton shoes need a gummy soles for good grip' - or a shoe need a gummy sole?
The 'Playing rules' section appears to have been written by a non-native speaker - it needs a copyedit
Units of measurement - sometimes you use metric, sometimes imperial, sometimes both. Standardize on one and then quote the other in brackets after it. You can use the standard abbreviations rather than spelling it out each time, and the manual of style recommends inserting an non-breaking space between values and units
'This system was abandoned later' and 'later also replaced' - surely there are dates for these.
'Badminton racquets, in conjunction with hockey sticks, are also used in the lesser-known “sport” of Bee-Whacking.' looks like subtle vandalism
Strokes - would benefit from some diagrams
Strategy - re-covers some info from the strokes section (i.e. smash is redescribed in the second sentence)
As a personal preference I'd like to see more inline citations.
I've taken this very important article concerning evolution (which was a real mess) pretty far in the past couple of days, but I'm not sure where to go from here. Any ideas will be appreciated. BenB401:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, unfortunately "this is the only illustration I could find, and I can't draw" isn't a legitimate fair use rationale. Try the {{reqimage}} or {{reqdiagram}} templates instead.
(edit-conflicted explanation) For essentially the same reason that, as described in the fair use policy, it's not legitimate to use a copyrighted photo of a person to illustrate an article about the person rather than one about the specific photograph in question. It's also considered important to use or create a free image where possible rather than using a fair-use one. The image and diagram request templates can attract good diagram-creators who can help - I'd try it myself, but my previous image efforts have been... rather bad :) looks like you've attracted a few. Opabinia regalis23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's buried somewhere in the MoS that headers shouldn't repeat the title, but the sections would read much better as "natural speciation" and "artificial speciation".
A more extensive discussion of the Galapagos would be useful, as it's the best-known example of the phenomenon.
The "observed examples" link to talk.origins is well-researched and useful as an external link, but surely there's a more academic compilation somewhere?
I don't think so. I've looked. If there is, I can't find one. The talk.origins faq is pretty well sourced, with plenty of peer-reviewed science citations. BenB423:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of phylogenetics and the measurement of species coalescence times might be a good expansion.
I haven't worked on this article much, but as a fan of the series, I find it extremely disappointing that other fans couldn't have done better in certain spots of the article. You know, not enough citations, that type of thing. If there's anything else in the article that needs to be improved, mention it here and/or on the series' talk page. Perhaps you, I, and some other fans of the series can try and whip this article into top shape. (Ibaranoff2423:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I would like the article to be a candidate for The feature article. After proper cleanup can someone translate the article in french, spanish and german.Hugeaux05:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been rewriting this and many othe UK PC mag articles - as well as the list of PC magazines and have created the PC Magazines template. I am basically trying to improve them to a levle where thay can be featured content.
Basically this article is still very much in development and has much more content to be added, plus of course wiki links need adding to this new version. In this context the article is very incomplete.
What I am looking for is guidance and ideas on the format and layout of the article. Unfortunately many magazine articles on wikipedia are not very good and there isn't much in the way of a general layout. Which is a shame. So any ideas of how I can lay this article out / improve / add to it will be much much appreciated
There is currently no lead section - the article launches straight into what would usually be included in the main body of the article.
Avoid opinion based statements, such as "unfortunately a lack of response has made this section very intermittent", as this expresses a particular point of view.
The article currently lacks references or citations, other than forum postings, which are not generally viewed as reliable sources. Existing references should be converted to use the m:Cite format. It is not necessary to include Dennis Publishing's website inline - the wikilink to Dennis Publishing Ltd. is sufficient.
The article is biased towards the present - Micro Mart was very different 5 or 6 years ago, never mind 15 or 20 years ago. IIRC it was very much an Auto Trader type publication. The development of the magazine format - and the way that it was (and still is) bought for its advertising content by many people - should be covered in more depth.
Hey thanks for that, I agree about needing more on the past of MM, I am currently trying to get the current editor to provide any info he may have access to plus I am trying to pick the brains of older users on the forum.
As to the other things, thanks I have noted them down as I rewrite :D I forgot all about the lead and stuff so it will be useful. Thanks for pointing out the NPOV as well, it's always hard when your writing (I find) to write impartially and even harder to spot the POV bits afterwards. I will take a good look through and see what I can change.
There's a bit of info in the biography that could be moved out into other sections: the part that discusses some songs in detail, and the "family life" section, which doesn't fit chronologically.
The extensive thematic analysis could certainly use some references — surely enough professionally-written reviews and essays can be found on someone like him, especially in print? Also, it's primarily an analysis of his songs — what about the other material? And if you're going to analyze the songs, why not go into the music in more detail as well? (Instrumentation, style, composition...)
In fact, create an actual list of references per style.
Don't link to a word in the middle of a song title; expand on the info outside of the quotation marks.
Try not to phrase parenthetical asides with words like "note".
Clip down the external links a bit; individual YouTube clips can go. For articles containing useful information, use them as references and include them that way.
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, APRt02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page is not bad, but can get alot better. Perhaps it can be reordered, or it's missing key information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Selmo (talk • contribs) 06:24, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Trivia. FA no likey Trivia. Intergrate the most interesting and important parts of the Trivia section into the body of the article, and to hell with the rest.
Plot. Intergrate the sub-plot section into the the main plot. If every film article had a seperate section for each sub-plot, well, the Revenge of the Sith article would be a mess.
Trailers and TV spots. Don't list and provide links to every single goddamned one. Just write a summary about "Promotion" or "Release". Get rid of this section
Connections to SII. Prosify. Lists are bad for FA
Allegories and Allusions (specific to other lore). Rename to Cultural Allusions, and prosify.
Back-References. What is this? Get it out of here!
Spin offs. No. Get rid of this, maybe have seperate sections on Video game, novel, ect, with each section providing a link to the respective main article
Production needs more references, I would merge Marlon Brando's role into the cast description, once you model the section after other FAs.
Deleted scenes needs to be expanded and referenced.
Trailers and TV spots is no good, create a section on promotion or something. Get rid of as many ex.links in the text as possible.
Reactions is not very good. See other FAs.
Box office results needs tyo be expanded or moved into a cleaned up Reactions.
Merge IMAX 3D release into my proposed Promotion/Release section.
Connections to Superman and Superman II must be turned into paragraphs, and have a few references.
Same goes for Allegories and Allusions (specific to other lore).
Trivia, removeentirely, and grab what is actually useful content, merge it into appropriate sections.
Other back-references, merge into Ref. to Sup. I and II (change title to ref. to other Sup. media?)
Change the title of Spin-offs, though keep them together, as if you seperate them, they will all be too short. No dot points. Perhaps merge Documentary into here as well, or more appropriately, into Promotion/Release.
Its very good for an obscure film. All the images need fair use rationale, and the image gallery should be removed as its extraneous copyrighted material. The first sentence needs to be rewritten; it may be uncommon but I don't think its "unqiue" to combine live action and animation and "for adults only" should be removed. At least rewrite it to say its an "adult film". The word "recently" (with clasified as a cult film) and "young" (with Al Sharpton) should be removed as those are time sensitive words. The only other issue I had is with the long Roger Ebert sentence in parenthesis in the intro. It would best if that was turned into its own seperate sentence. Good work. Medvedenko06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been raised in the articles talk page, there is a lack of good sourcing, a vast amount of speculation and a large section of the article which has questionable POV. I'd like to open up the discussion a bit more since I believe that the existing bad habits are going to continue to grow as the article develops. S.Skinner22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
the article has undergone major readjustments and is now complete (information-wise) and follows the featured articles criteria. However, the article also needs to undergo a thorough grammar and usage check. Also, the article images are not under the best usage category and should be for the public domain of Wikipedia. Minor details that are easily overlooked is most likely the main priority that needs assistance. Personally, I would like to know your opinion and advice on how to better the article further and prepare it for featured article candidacy. Thank you very much, AJ2419:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which area contains too much bolding?. Citations and references of the article are currently under construction. Thank You for your comments. -- AJ2423:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to prove that any entry, even about the weirdest of subjects, can be graded as a GA and become an FA with the help and input of the Wikipedia community. . Hence, I have chosen one of my favorite bad movies of all time to test my theory. I am looking for pointers and advice for all areas on the entry page. I believe with a lot of hard work, this article, about one of the worst films ever made, can blossom into a well written, peer reviewed masterpiece and one day achieve FA status.
Hee, well... Even though I have my doubts of such like this attaining that, it's really worth the work to see one of these SciFi original movies.
Firstly, the film's called Boa vs. Python. Though, the main problem with all these films is that there's primarily not a whole lot of information on them, i.e. Black Hole.. But I think we could try proving that fact wrong with Wikipedia. If you happen to actually have a DVD thereof, that would prolly be a tremendous help. DrWho4219:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, expanding/improving the bit on the plot/synopsis would be helpful. Getting rid of the Cast segment should be done, I think, since we could always look it up on IMDb and alot of the actors don't seem as notable as others. If there's director's or so-and-so's commentary thereon, that would prove useful for a Trivia section or for something concerning the Production aisle. And possibly critical reception if there is any.. Anything that's notable should be noted and a screenshot would be neat. DrWho4219:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dr.Who except you should not put a Trivia section in, those are unencyclopedic. Also the cast section needs to stay in. Most importantly the article needs a Production and critical reception sections. Also see if you see how many people watched it the night it was on. Maybe a SciFi channel press release, or one of the orginizations that track TV ratings might have the info. And of course you need references and footnotes. Medvedenko05:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cast section should be cut down. Not entirely now that you mention it, but downsized well-enough with some notes as to who-and-who was cast. I don't think we really need to know who plays Soldier No.1 through 3... Don't you? Didn't think so.. Unless they're pretty major, otherwise if they're simply minor characters whose appearance is little less than a special cameo don't include them. It's like saying who played "Fat Zombie" or "Hare Krishna Zombie" in Dawn of the Dead. I quite agree with you though. These B-movies seem to deliver good enough ratings for SciFi to sign on for a deal of having the most of them in a year.. With Alien Apocalypse being the highest rate, s'posedly.. Some year or so ago, anyways. Also, how 'bout try to create articles for corresponding things, like the director? What other films did he do and what inspired him or tempted him to do this? DrWho4206:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone so far, I will begin cutting down the cast section. As far as ratings go, I don't know where to find them. I will dig. TruthCrusader08:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently did a major cleanup on this one, some rewriting, etc. It's not in a bad state, but needs improving, any ideas ? (except for references, I know it needs more references). — Wackymacs14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More inline citations are of course welcomed. 'Current products' and 'Corporate structure' are stub sections and need expantion, while half of the article is taken by 'Alleged accounting irregularities', reflecting the somewhat 'newsy' nature of what many editors like to write about. The article should be expanded until 'Alleged accounting irregularities' are only one of many large sections. Consider contacting the company, maybe they will send some of their staff to work on it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been working on this article and would like to have suggestions to make it better. I have made sure I have sources for everything, but am wondering if it could have more information. Please just tell me anything that needs improving. Thanks, Jasrocks(talk) 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To start with – looks "listy", needs more inline citations, should be tagged "article containing Indic text". Have not read the whole article. more later if manage to read it! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this for POV some time ago. Apparently things really were this bad but when I requested the author to add citations he removed my tags.
Now; I am not questioning the validity of the article; it simply needs to be rewritten to sound like an encyclopedia article. --QuentinSmith11:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Article author] I removed the tags because you flooded the article with them (often multiple tags in the middle of sentences) in your second attack on the article (the first had generally claimed POV without explanation out of lack of knowledge of the subject matter). A reasonable use of in-line citations would be great, but there's no need to make the text unreadable until they're added. In the interim, I added a large references section to make the article's reliance on stories by major news media outlets (that were previously available through the external links) more clear, and I pointed out on the talk page where the two statements in the article that you doubted the most were easily verified, with direct quotes from major news stories. Something else I would appreciate help with is the addition of the village's early history, as the article only documents the final decades of the now-abolished village after the corruption became widely known. Postdlf15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has evolved a lot in the past year. Several of the contributors to the article have provided good info about the band for the past few months. I just wanted to know if there's anything that needs to be fixed or tweaked or even added into the article. Perhaps areas where a more in depth description can be made. Douglasr00707:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is right next to the other article I'm commenting on. Here goes...
Improve the lead section; it should be able to stand on its own. See Wikipedia:Lead section and next comment.
Try to put the article in context. Could the style of the music be described in more detail? What is their place within their genre / related genres, or the music scene in general? (What will they be remembered for, historically?) What about musicians they were influenced by / have influenced? I would think entire new sections could be created discussing these.
So you've bought into the "band logo in infobox" trend? In the long run, I'm fairly certain there is going to be backlash against this. Just a heads-up. –Unint23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed the infobox for the band info but I have no idea what to do with the Trivia section. Could a section of cultural references be made for some of the trivia? I know I could delete some of the trivia bits since it's just refers to one of the artists and not the group itself. Douglasr00709:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could expand the article to discuss some of the things I suggested, I think you would be able to find natural places for the more important information among the trivia. I would seriously place that as the greater priority. –Unint03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get this good article status and maybe eventually FA status. I've put in a good deal of work into this including finding a bunch of references. I'd like to know if my references/citations are properly formatted and sufficient. Other subjects of interest that I would specifically like to hear about are encyclopedic tone and concise language. What else do editors think needs to be done here? Wickethewok04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the automated notes - the technical stuff especially about headings and stuff is useful. I'll make those changes later today. If anyone would like to help out with removing "redundancies" and copyediting in general would be great, as I think it needs a second set of of eyes. If anyone would like to expand on the automated stuff regarding "how to satisfy 2a" that'd be great, too! Also, if anyone can judge how "complete" the article is, that'd be cool as I'm concerned about people's perspectives who don't really know anything about Sasha or electronic music in general. Wickethewok15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, taking a shot based on my limited knowledge of the subject...
One aspect where this article has exceled so far, I think, is presenting information in context. Explaining the artists' influence and stature in their musical fields is something that's not always easy to do, so good job on that. One thing, though — I seem to recall some criticism about the musical direction he's taken more recently, particularly post-Digweed. Any substance to that? Worth discussing?
Yeah, I agree. Pretty much all of the reviews and such I seem to find don't really have an criticisms of Sasha. I realize that some fans don't like the direction he has gone musically, but I haven't found any reliable sources discussing this (yet). If you find any discussing criticism, I'd love to integrate them into the article. I will continue looking myself as well. Thanks for all the feedback btw, its much appreciated! Wickethewok03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't really think of any obvious major sources. Actually, I get the feeling sometimes that public opinion like this, particularly regarding dance music, is all just concentrated in forums — it can't really be pinned down to a solid, reliable source, which is what worries me.
Thought of another topic — the Allmusic review of GU013 kind of puts things into perspective regarding Sasha's place in the "rise and fall of trance music", so to speak. The first half of that has somewhat fallen out of public memory, while the second half of that I don't think many people are even aware of. Might be worth expanding. –Unint22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest sorting the discography by release types, as seems to be the widespread practice. Also, maybe awards could be sorted by won/nominated rather than using bold, though I wouldn't know where to find a specific citation on that; this is mainly based on the policy discouraging people from bolding #1 chart positions. –Unint21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the discogs as you suggested. I'm not quite sure how to format the awards section as I think sorting by won/nominated might look a little awkward (unless anyone can find a good example of how to do this). I think I might change the "Awards" section into prose instead of a list. Do you think thats a good idea? Wickethewok03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at featured articles on films for ideas. The trend seems to be that major, award-heavy subjects get awards sections, while lesser-known subjects list awards with prose in a section like "Reception" or "Influence". (Of course, the significance of the award itself is going to be factor here.) Make what you will of that. –Unint22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, Unint. When I get a chance I'll add the Allmusic review stuff in and write the awards section in prose. Thanks for the feedback! Wickethewok02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. All images need Fair use rationale. There are too many one sentence or very short paragraphs, many can probably be merged. Ex: Signature show elements can really be one large paragraph instead of three tiny ones. Shouldn't the Synopsis include Simon and River being chased by the Alliance since that was a significant part of the show? The Cast section sometimes gets into original research by anaylizing the characters, this analiysis should be referenced or rewritten. I really would like to see Original airing rewritten into prose and better referencing. The article is missing critical reception information. In DVD release Technical specifications and Features are not encyclopedic and should be removed. Good luck Medvedenko06:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Have added the fair use rationale, and tightened up some paragraphs. Added to the synopsis and tried to trim out some OR in Cast but it still needs work. On some of them, I cited the episode where a particular trait was revealed, is that okay? Redid Original Airing, but it still needs refs. Coincidentally I had added critical reception, must have been after you'd seen it. Removed tech specs and features from DVD. -plange21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just went through whole article and corrected sentence structure, grammar, etc. I also added actor's names when character is first mentioned. -plange04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. A few thoughts:
If possible, flesh out the Themes section a bit more - it seems a bit weak at the moment.
The characters section seems a bit overfull - all it really needs is a one or two line summary of the character, with everything else on the page for that character. e.g. the remark about Malcolm Reynolds being #18 in TV Guide's Greatest SciFi legends should only be present on Malcolm Reynolds, not this page.
It may be worth putting a one- or two-sentance summary for each of the episodes in the episodes table, similar to how the characters section is done.
The soundtrack "see also" link is to a redirect, and should probably be a "main article" link.
"In its October 3 review, Salon.com stated: ..." - what year? Also, the date wants to be wikilinked (e.g. October 32002). In the same section, you've got a review comment which isn't in a box, unlike all the others.
Consider removing the external links from within the page, confining them to the end of the page. They're especially noticable in the reviews section.
You've got a few citation needed labels around - they need sorting out. (Specifically, at the end of the comics and film sections.)
A pet hate of mine is having IMDB, TV.com and official website links in both the infobox at the top of the page and the External Links section. I tend to prefer having them only in the infobox.
Note that all dates should be in the same form, e.g. 'January 2, 2006' (with appropriate linking). A lot of your references had the date in the format 2006-01-02, which doesn't display too nicely when you're not logged in/have no date preference set (the exception being the 'accessdate' in the cite templates, which requires the date in that format). Also, it's best to use the 'date' section of the cite tags for the full date rather than the 'year' section. (I've just fixed most of those.)
Thanks, I've trimmed down the characters and addressed most of your concerns. Will tackle the rest shortly, thanks! -plange14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much phrasing tightening to be done - paragraphs often consist of simple declarative sentences that are not phrased in such a way as to flow into each other, producing a choppy effect. Pairs of sentences like "Settlers and refugees on the outlying worlds have relative freedom from the central government, but lack the amenities of the high-tech civilization that exist on the inner worlds. The captain of the crew of Serenity is Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and the episode "Serenity" establishes that the Captain and his first mate Zoë (Gina Torres) are veteran "Browncoats" of the Unification War, a failed attempt by the outlying worlds to resist the Alliance's assertion of control." do not flow well at all.
The synopsis sections could better adhere to WP:WAF. Things like "Much of his and his crew's work consists of cargo runs or smuggling." could be changed to something like "Mal describes his work as 'Insert quote here' in a way that would be more informative.
Signature show elements... nothing about the dialogue?
The themes section is trying to come to a point, but reads as a disconnected set of trivia. Back up and use some quotes from Whedon and Minear about the overall theme, and then zoom in to specific examples. Right now it's got too many tangents - Fox's disapproval, Joss's favorite scenes, etc. But right now this feels like facts in search of a section.
Broadcast history is perhaps excessive. I don't think we need to have the episode order for every country the show aired in.
The success of the revival campaigns in getting the movie made should be discussed in the cancellation section.
Music should go after production, as it's an aspect of production.
Reception should go closer to cancellation, as they're related issues (Both being about how the public recieved the show, ultimately)
The reception section is too hagiographic - extended reviewer quotes, Fireflyseason2.com, Serenity Day, and the Stargate shout-out are probably all unnecessary, and only of fannish interest.
Awards, being a list, should be towards the end.
I cannot wrap my head around having the movie, which is clearly the most important spin-off, relegated after the books and comics. I'm not even sure the movie deserves to be called a spin-off - it seems rather more than that, and it seems to me like an expansion of the movie section would be reasonable - things like how it did and what plot threads it picked up on.
More inline references would be nice. References not inline should be renamed further reading, since it's near impossible to verify if they were used and for what facts. Some sections are stub sections and should be expanded (Role-playing game, Videos). There should be no external links in body (transform them into proper inline citations). There seem to be too many quotes, and personally I dislike blockquotes, consider moving some of them to Wikiquote.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a peer review of this article. Specifically:
Where are references most needed?
Where is the fluff, and can it be cut? This applies especially to the politics, education, and culture sections (where us New Englanders can be a bit too proud, I'm afraid).
What statements need references? Of course all claims should be cited. But which ones stick out as being especially in need of citation?
How's the grammar and writing style?
Should we keep the infobox, or get rid of it?
How's the length?
Most important: What is currently preventing this article from achieving featured status, in your opinion?
The section Notable New Englanders has no entries, but only a link to the main article. How would you feel about adding a few really significant people, like U.S. presidents? I know how hard it can be to keep the list down to a small number, but having a criterion can help. Fg202:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sports section is strong. Would mentioning minor-league teams strengthen it further? As it stands, it's top-heavy with Massachusetts teams. Also, Boston has a reputation for sports writing. Present and former reporters for the papers, and perhaps announcers, especially any who became famous nationwide, would be a possible direction for expanding the section. 07:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are also individual sports such as boxing, golf, tennis. Rocky Marciano and Marvin Hagler come to mind, and lists in articles on states would probably turn up more. Again, limiting the discussion to people who have won nationwide titles can help prevent it from growing out of hand. This is important because there are lots of individuals in sports (though few minor-league teams). 07:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The Education section begins with a long list of colleges and universities. The following Culture and education section repeats much of the earlier section. Then Academic publishing contains just one paragraph. I suggest consolidating all three heads and rewriting to eliminate repetition.
Later, Urban New England contains two lists, which are not both necessary. The first is for Greater Boston, and belongs in the article Greater Boston. The second is the one to keep for New England.
The two paragraphs on the Patriots' proposed move to Connecticut can probably be replaced by a single-sentence summary. There's similar material in the article on the Patriots.
In the Economy section you mention dairy production. This might be an opportunity to name Ben & Jerry's, a brand with widespread recognition. Also to name the crops that farmers produce, including tobacco (Connecticut ranks 7th, which might surprise many readers). Potatoes, Christmas trees. There are also local traditions such as maple sugar production. Cranberries.
Blueberries 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Related to shellfish digging is the quahog, which might deserve mention (or it might not). Likewise "The Perfect Storm." And WHOI. This USDA page on Massachusetts and similar ones for the other states (just type the two-letter abbreviation in place of "MA") could be valuable references.
In publishing, there's Merriam-Webster in Springfield. Yankee Magazine in New Hampshire. The defunct Byte Magazine, formerly in NH, had worldwide circulation and was translated into foreign-language editions. Fg207:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update
Thanks a lot for your helpful comments. I've tried to adhere to as many as possible. Take a look at the changes in the article. What do you think, now? Do you think it might be ready for FA status? --AaronS12:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on expanding and referencing the article during the last 3 days and I'm stuck...so I'm hoping this Peer Review will give me a better idea on what needs to be done...such as sentances that need referencing...and the dreaded Weasal Words...Any suggestions would be appriciated ;). --Skully Collins14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Skully. I hate to mention it, but Frank Williams Racing Cars is a totally different team to Williams F1 - they shouldn't be part of the same article (IMHO, of course!). Frank himself was about the only common factor between the two. I'll take up the discussion on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing that worries me with the constructor articles - for the teams with a long history at least - is that it can read like "just one damn thing after another" to misquote someone or other on history. One approach that may work is to split out the article into more sections, as I am trying to do with Brabham, so different kinds of topics, like technical innovation (a good category for Williams!), notable drivers etc form separate sections. Just a thought. 4u1e18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is Good Article quality, but I want to know what my peers think before nominating it. I know it could use more info around the standard gun's section. Does anyone else see anything else wrong with the article? GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word new in the first sentences doesn't make any sense in an encyclopedia. Imagine if you were reading and old Britannica and it says a cotton gin is a new invention! Remove it or consider replacing it with "invented in whatever year".
All of the pictures on the page are copyrighted and a fair use rational for all of them is questionable considering that the page it a bit crowded with pictures. I recommend removing all the picture except for one and put it in an {{Infobox Weapon}} (see Uzi submachine gun)
This article fits into more categories, start by looking at other guns and see what categories they are in.
The references should be change to a {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} as appropriate.
In general more reliable sources are need (a joke forum!)
While there is no need to repeat everything said in Urban warfare there should be some discussion on the need to create such a weapon.
This article has gone under some improvement in the last few months. It is probably time to get some input from the community. --ppm17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of...(WP:PEACOCK)
...he was profoundly influenced by the humanism of Rabindranath Tagore...(how do we know that)
His inspiration came when he attended a screening of Vittorio De Sica's The Bicycle Thieves in London, which convinced him of his future in filmmaking. (Can be copyedited for clarity)
Compeleted in 1955, Pather Panchali is a milestone of humanist filmmaking and changed the course of Bengali and Indian cinema. (POV)
-- should be replaced with —(—)
Ray was profoundly affected by the people and the prevailing socio-economic conditions of Bengal...(how do we know that. Also POV)
Due to Ray's level of involvement in every aspect of filmmaking, his films demonstrate a level of personal expression rarely experienced in the cinema. (Original Research)
Hi - its great to see a prospective FA on this great man's life. Here are some points of criticism:
Lead it appears to fragmented (6 segments), and monotonously beginning with "Ray..." A lead must be a cohesive and succinct summary of the article, written in brilliant prose that should compell the reader to actually read the whole article.
Satyajit or Ray? please refer to him consistently, and as Ray. Also don't add his name to subsections - no need for "Satyajit Ray's Craft," as nobody expects you to talk about someone else.
I don't think Shatranj Ke Khiladi is an "Urdu" movie - its pretty much Hindi with Urdu overtones.
Filmography please see WP:MOSBIO - I don't think this section should be included (it should be placed into one of Wikipedia's sisterlinks or Filmography of Satyajit Ray). This is also vital in reducing the article size from 60kb.
See also template consider creating Template:Satyajit Ray in which you link forks, films and associated articles.
Reception, Influences and legacy deal with common subject matter. Please subdivide the content of these sections into "Criticism and legacy," and "commemoration" (Indian and foreign reception should be added here).
Organization while the prose is very good indeed, I'm afraid the organization isn't - the "Career in films" section begins with analysis of "Pather Panchali," becomes a summary of periods of his work, and then again breaks into specific "documentaries" and "unfilmed." I suggest an organization on the lines of one main section of period summaries, which focuses on his personal life and succession of works and progression in the industry - the importance of "Pather Panchali" in this section should not be for the film itself, but on how it played a role Ray's life. This section should discuss how Ray's career transformed, changed and moved through different levels - also discuss relationship with other artists, filmmakers and actors - and personal life is very crucial. A second main section that tackle specific films types - Bengali, Hindi/Foreign, documentaries, which discusses Ray in specific context to work done on these films - include your analysis of "Pather Panchali" and other notable films through this section, but don't talk about just the films - keep focus on Ray.
Filmcraft should incorporate more of how Ray's filmcraft was received, analyzed and understood now.
Balance of POV please make sure that along with praise of Ray, there is substantial discussion of any failures, criticism and personal episodes of difficulties in Ray's life. It is important to describe how Ray received the Oscar on his sickbed.
Bengali Politics while Mrinal Sen and others are openly communists, Ray was their contemporary and his political and social outlook must be elucidated.
I hope this helps - this article needs re-organization and some copyediting, but only because the subject matter is so damn diverse and important. Cheers and good work! This Fire Burns Always 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very valid arguments. I must object on Satranj, though. I saw it yesterday (:) yes I am hooked on Ray), and the certificate that they show at the beginning indetifies it as a Urdu (and only Urdu) movie.--ppm18:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more point. I understand the need to focus on the person and not his films. But Ray pretty much lived through his art, unlike say Tagore or Nazrul Islam. Chapters of Ray's biography by Robinson read like: The Trilogy, Charulata, Days and Nights, The Calcutta Trilogy, etc :)--ppm18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not necessary, but you have to make an assessment of how to reduce the article size. At present even the timeline seems unnecessary and space-takin - I mean, doesn't the biography itself offer a timeline of events? And is the infobox necessary for a film director, when his date and place of birth are given in the first line of the article? Some articles like Katie Holmes are not as copious, and the filmography is not large. This Fire Burns Always 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is less to 'one of the greatest...' (though I would rather have a prominent) than it is to subtle, austere, and lyrical. I have no issues with calling someone one of the greatest. In fact I strongly supported this in the Shakespeare article. - Cribananda01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - there is a problem with the fact that most of the pictures are fair use as screenshots, posters or book covers. The fact is fair use probably is not justified here because the topic is Ray, not these respective works. I think most of these pictures will have to go. To make this an FA, you need more pictures of Ray (which is not hard since all prior to 1946 are PD). However, you'll have many object votes citing improper FU images and an over-dependence on images that don't depict Ray. This Fire Burns Always 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments
IMO, the large size of the article can ne decreased by creating some fork articles. For example, the whole section of "Career in Films" can be decreased in size by creating a number of daughter articles like "Early film career of Satyajit Ray", "Later film career of Satyajit Ray" etc. I am not sure if such namings sound good though! But creation of daughter articles are needed, as such large critical discussions about the films in the main article can make people relucatant to read the article thoroughly. Also, precis form should be followed as far as possible. This job is difficult for those who are not familiar with Ray's works, but with an author like ppm (who is absorbed in Ray!) we can do it.
Hi - a continuing issue in the data/substance of this article and of potential forks, as well as pictures is that there is a lot of detail about his films but not on the person. The argument that Ray lived through his work is POV, and you need to focus on the person, and through him on his work and personal life. I don't get much information on Ray's character, thinking, behavior and day-to-day life, which is supposed to be first in a biography. If the article is asserting the Ray lived through his work as a fact, the article should then make clear what the reader should understand about Ray by reading so much about different films. This article is not "The Making of Pather Panchali," etc.
I mean here you have a versatile man of versatile work and skills, living in the tumultuous era of Bengal, and its so hard to extend beyond a listing of his films and foreign reception? This Fire Burns Always 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great point which should (and will be) addressed. However, Ray openly claimed to be uninterested in politics, almost never made speeches, almost never signed a document protesting or supporting this and that (which I contrasted to Tagore before). Someone is interested about what he thinks about naxalite movement (for example)? She must see Pratidwandi, there is simply no other way. --ppm01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think the issue is very important and I am trying to make changes to take this in consideration.--ppm02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline and infobox
Are these necessary? The infobox is ugly and merely repeats the details of his birth given in the first line of the article, and given he is not a political office-holder, I don't think it is called for at all. Also the timeline has a paucity of events to record, which makes it unnecessary - most details on when he filmed what are already well-covered in the sub-sections, aren't they? These two boxes add nothing to this article, so I request their removal. This Fire Burns Always 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is a new template now - films directed by Ray (Template:Satyajit Ray). However, this template seems not appropriate for this article, as a template for this article should contain not only films, also literature. Also, the present template merely repeats the filmograohy incompletely (the template does not contain the English names). IMO, this template is very good for individual movie articles, but not for this article. Also the placement of the template is odd.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
directed - any particular reason to wikilink this word?
Early life
"took a decisive turn" - from what? Did they migrate to west bengal? Did they start participating in arts and literature? The sentence is confusing.
"nonsense rhyme" - why is it withing quotation marks? The word is already wikilinked.
Norman Clare - redlink, either create article or get rid of the redlink
General comments: The Apu years section is too long. Perhaps it can be reduced by 5 to 8 sentences. Same goes for section 3-5. Many of the sections provide brief summaries of his films. Since this is a biography article, you might consider reducing those summaries to one or two sentences ... interested readers can always go follow the film article link.
These are my comments for the time being, I'd try to add some after going through the rest of the article (which is quite long at 49KB, should be reduced to at least 44KB or so). --Ragib20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review by SandyGeorgia
Hi, I was asked to have a look, but there is so much productive commentary already, that I feel like I should have a look again in a few days. For now, a couple of really trivial suggestions:
Put the categories and interwikis in alphabetical order
Lots of inline citations – very nice. On first glance, I did see some paragraphs with no citations, though, so double check that everything that needs to be cited is. Also, someone can doublecheck me on this, but:
Seton 1971, pp. 33
Seton 1971, pp. 112-115
I believe it should be p. 33 and pp. 112-115 (isn't pp. only used when there is more than one page?)
I haven't had a detailed look at the prose yet, since it seems like there is still a lot of work going on, but the article does feel a bit longish, and some of the text is overly verbose. I can see right out of the starting gate some ways to shorten it up - picking a random paragraph - combine and shorten some of the sentences, and take out some of the overuse of adjectives (make sure it reads like an encyclopedia entry rather than a fan review):
Ray's last three films, made after his recovery, have a very distinctive style, largely due to the strictures put on him by doctors. Shot mostly indoors, they are much more verbose than his earlier films.
Ray's last three films, made after his recovery and with medical strictures in place, were shot mostly indoors, have a distinctive style, and are more verbose than his earlier films.
Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People), made in 1989, is regarded by some as a weak film by Ray standards, and seen as an exercise to get back into filming after prolonged illness.[26] Made from an original screenplay in 1989, Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree), , is seen as film of greater qualities.
The 1989 Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) – his first film after the prolonged illness – is regarded as weaker than his other films,[26] while Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree) is considered superior and of "distressing beauty".[27]
In this film of "distressing beauty",[27] an old man, who has lived a life of utmost honesty, comes to learn the corruption three of his sons, and the final scene shows him finding solace only in the companionship of the fourth, uncorrupted but mentally ill son.
In this film, an old man who has lived an honest life learns his three sons are corrupt; in the final scene, he finds solace in the companionship of his fourth, uncorrupted but mentally ill son.
In Agantuk (The Stranger), his last film, Ray lightens the mood, but deals with issues more universal. A stranger visits a family claiming to be a long lost uncle. Through his experience, ranging from eager acceptance by the child of the family to apathy and suspicion by the elders, Ray weaves questions about identity, nature and civilization with characteristic lightness of touch.
Ray lightens the mood in Agantuk (The Stranger), his last film. A stranger, claiming to be a long lost uncle, visits a family, whose reactions to him range from eager acceptance by a child to apathy and suspicion by the elders. Ray weaves questions about identity, nature and civilization into the film, with characteristic lightness of touch.
In 1992, Ray's health deteriorated due to heart complications. He was admitted to a hospital, and would never recover.
In 1992, Ray's heart condition deteriorated, he was admitted to a hostpital, and he never recovered.
An honorary Oscar was awarded to him weeks before his death, which he received in a gravely ill condition. He died on April 23, 1992.
While gravely ill, he received an honorary Oscar, and died several weeks later on April 23, 1992.
I hope that's a start. I don't know that the article is too long, as much as the prose is overly verbose and can be tightened up. Regards, Sandy22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has made good article, with some additions since. I am interested in general suggestions for improvement and if reviewers believe this could potentially be a Featured Article (I am not sure the topic is substantial enough). Basically, I have made most of the edits to this article and I would appreciate more input and feedback on it. I am working on other Pennsylvania creek articles and this is the model for those. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The automated suggestions are now pasted at the bottom of this page.
Thanks for the suggestions, I will note those I fix here as I do them. For now I fixed WP:MOSNUM issues (added "a non-breaking space...between a number and the unit of measurement" and "spell[ed] out source units of measurements in text"). Also linked "years with full dates" and "alphabetize[d] the categories". Ruhrfisch02:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed all the automated peer review suggestions, and would appreciate any (non-automated) feedback). Thanks Ruhrfisch15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE AND REVIEW IT? I am very sorry to 'shout' but I am hoping to get someone's attention (and thanks again to AndyZ for the helpful semi-automated suggestions). Thanks, Ruhrfisch16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I noticed:
in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania in thecomma missing after Pennsylvania
The Great Shamokin Path crossed the creek near its mouth,[5] where Larry Burt, the first settler (for whom Larrys Creek is named) also lived. comma missing after settler
the village of Cogan House, then under the Larrys Creek Covered Bridge missing and
It is 90 feet (27 m) long and a Burr arch truss bridge. I think it sounds slightly better without the "and a"
Camp Kiwanis, and the New Tribes Institute, a camp for preparing Christian missionaries. in lists of 2 items, the comma isn't necessary (and could a little bit be provided for Camp Kiwanis also?)
The Great Shamokin Path crossed the creek at a ford near its mouth, however, no trails of the indigenous peoples are recorded as having followed Larrys Creek north.[5] comma before however should be semicolon, or however should be changed to but
Lycoming County was formed from Northumberland County prompting further growth missing comma
Larrys Creek
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
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.[4]
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[10]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[2]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [3]
I wrote this article using German sources. Most of the things listed here are more or less considered accepted fact in German history, and therefore not particularly worthy of citations. I tried, however, to cite a couple of things I thought might be curiosities. Is there anything else here that anyone feels needs to be cited or supported? - Che Nuevara:JointheRevolution16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is there is fine, but it seems like it could have more context earlier in the article. The lead paragraph / section could be longer and needs to summarize the article better. It does not specifically say Henry IV was the Holy Roman Emperor, and makes no mention of the Pope(!), whom Henry walked to Canosa to see. It might also help to give the length of the journey and locate it better (a map? more description of where Canossa and Augsburg etc. are?). Where did Henry start from? If someone does not already know a lot about the topic, the article could be confusing at first read. Not everyone knows what investiture is or why excommunication was such a dreaded outcome at the time and explaining these succinctly might make everything clearer and explain why Henry did what he did. I liked the section on Canossa in German culture especially. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far too close to this list (and to the main Caravaggio article) to be impartial, but I do feel it's pretty good - as complete, or near-complete, as we can make it, although there does seem to be an extra Lute Player to be noted (the main article on this painting has information), and a Holy Family with John the Baptist (listed in Puglisi simply as a Holy Family and not thought by her to be genuine). Apart from that aspect, I think we need to have some way of indicating how solid the various attributions are - some are rock-solid, like the Saint Matthew cycle, others are dubious, like some of the John the Baptists, and many are in-between. PiCo17:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article recently passed GA. This peer review request is now posted, as a logical next step towards hopefully attaining FA status. All & any comments appreciated SP-KP07:14, 10 July 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.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
Not quite accurate, the taxobox has a painting - and the chances of us finding an Ivorybill photo are not high. What about photos of habitat, Tanner, etc? SP-KP16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some image sources include the commons page on the species (which has some paintings) [8], and the Cashe River NWR Site [9] where the species was rediscovered (images of habitat and of the hoopla that surrounded rediscovery). Sabine's Sunbirdtalk17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.[3]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
Does this refer to "Other facts"? If so, why don't we call it "Ivory-billed Woodpecker in popular culture"? SP-KP16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
apparently
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[7]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
A few notes (more soon, but today has been super busy).
The intro is lopsided, almost all of it is about the rediscovery.
The biology section is unreferenced. It is also worth noting strongly that much of the biology of this species is conjecture or extrapolation from a few scattered observations. The species was studied by very few people before it vanished.
Almost no mention is made of the Cuban population - which lasted into the eighties if I recall. The Cuban Ivory-bill was a separate subspecies.
Those big quote sections with the blue quote marks, which were added after the GA status was approved, are really distracting. They generally get pinged on during a FA canidacy. I'd at least remove the blue quotes. Italics may work and large quotes are sometimes suitable for wikisource. Rlevse09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are way too much quotes inside the "possible rediscovery" section
"Breeding biology" is only one paragraph. It should probably be expanded in a "behavior" section, or somethig similar.
A distribution map, if relevant would be an asset.
Looks to me like many level 2 headers should be combined under a larger "history" section.
Hundereds of Wikipedia articles link to this article and it nearly always filters to the top of Google searches with the term "community" in them. In addition, "this article has been identified by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have." The text is awkward, there are very few authoritative sources and references cited, and the structure seems to be a bit unconventional in terms of Wikipedia style. Please lend a hand to help get this article at least up to GA status! Thanks in advance. CQ19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few one sentence paragraphs, especially in the lead. If I remember correctly WP:MOS advises against this.
The lead is probably a little short. It should give an overview of the article. And you probably shouldn't have a section called overview either. Sorry!
You will get picked up for not having inline citations of your references. The practical consequence of having only very few is that I can't tell which references you have used to provide which facts, either to confirm that they are right or to find out more about that particular bit of the topic.
I can't reference this (or at least I'm not going to, this is only a quick review!) but I think you'll find that the progression from hunter gatherer to city dweller was much less linear and inevitable than the article describes. In the Middle East there was a lengthy period in which communities drifted back and forth between the two lifestyles before agriculture really kicked off. Some hunter gatherer societies reached levels of complexity equivalent to less complex agrarian ones - in the American North West, for example. You might do better to reflect this.
Under 'Types of community' Why does Community of place appear at the bottom under 'Other classifications' as well as apparently being the main article for 'Location'?
'Challenge of Community' doesn't sound very encyclopaedic. What is the point that the article is trying to make here?
The automated suggestions are actually quite useful I find. Give them a go. If you want to return the favour, by the way, why not have a look at Brabham. I'm looking for views from non-motorsports fans and I've got a theory that if everyone who puts an article up for Peer Review reviews two other articles, we'd all get a lot more use out of this process! 4u1e21:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments 4u1e. We're working on the issues you mentioned. The article has undergone a massive re-write since AndyZ's script was run and much has changed. Maybe I'll ask him to run it again. We concur that the 'Types of community' section is a bit cumbersome, and we'll be dealing with that. Also, we're looking for more sources and more international coverage of the topic. The topic has proven to be so broad and abstract, it has made sourcing and referencing quite a challenge. Please feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Community and we'll do the same at Talk:Brabham Racing Organisation. I certainaly agree with your theory about the peer review process! Thanks again! • CQ12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved significantly since I last checked it few months ago, and it is certainly an extremly important subject. As such, it should have many more inline citations, preferably academic. Preferably every single fact should be referenced - and currently we have entire sections with no reference at all (for example, 'Significance of community'). Notes and references should be merged, and if something is not an inline citation it is more of a 'further reading' then any reference. It's great that it already cites an important work like Putnam's Bowling Alone, but it needs more important publications; there is not a single academic journal used in references as far as I can tell. Notable authors should be ilinked, like Ferdinand Tönnies or Robert Putnam, not only in text but in reference section, too (so should titles of notable publications). One of the key issues is definition: while there is no one definition of community, I think the article should cite several by most notable scholars. See also should be as short as possible, with its links incorporated into main article. Last but not least, I would suggest trying for an WP:ACPR and get this article reviewed by a scholar specializing in community (I may know a person like that, let me know when the article is ready for FAC and I will do this before FAC).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and what I'm taking as a "vote of confidence", Piotrus. I think we've made the classic mistake of trying to source an article to what we've written rather than first gathering the sources, then writing the article. All of the issues you brought up are being dealt with and this article's ambition is to become FAC material, so jump on in if you have the time. We could use your expertice. Please also have a look at the List of community topics, where I've started a Sources and references section to do the "gathering" of such. I know you're busy but if you have the time, go for it. Thanks again • CQ20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good article (I promoted it as such). My only suggestion is don't feel forced to discuss every aspect of community. Sometimes the best thing for articles on subjects as broad as this one is for them to leave a few points out so that they can really focus on their main points. Some sections such as Communitarianism might be worth reconsidering from this perspective. However there were no major problems and the only real concern I had was with the Community service sub-section that seemed tacked on and completely disconnected from the rest of the article. Cedars10:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This involves the lead and early life. will come back later with more.
first line uses Bengali twice, somewhat redundantly.
"..eligion, music and literature. Working as a journalist," -- A link is mising here. He returned to Bengal, and started working as a journalist
Following the death of his mentor Rabindranath Tagore in 1941, Nazrul began losing his voice and memory. --No correlation whatsoever.
"Whilst stationed in Karachi, Nazrul learnt Persian and the art of writing, and was exposed to Hindu religion, music and literature." -- this contradicts what is being said in "Early life", that he was exposed to hindusim when wandering around in Bengal.
"kaviyals" -- needs to be wikilinked or explained
early life -- if I remember correctly, there was an Asansol period, where he worked at a bakery for a while in the named town. This is not merely trivia information, his working class affinities can be traced back to it.
'known as the "Cultural capital of India" ' -- was it? I think its more appropriate to describe it as the cultural center of Bengal.
I believe Agnibeena was banned. This should be mentioned
The discussion on women is simply too long, and similiar stuff is repeated all over the article
"Nazrul's creativity diversfied as he explored Hindu devotional music by composing bhajans and kirtans, " -- he write more Shyama Sangit's than :#these forms
"Lord Byron of Bengali literature."--honestly haven't heard this one. ref a bit weak, too.
Unless I missed it, there is no mention of Nazrul running for election, and his communist leanings (friend of Mujaffar Ahmed, pioneering leader of CPI and Nazrul also was involved with "Langol"-- a leftist paper for a while). But this is just an example of the problems with dealing with Nazrul. Having read a number of biographies of the guy, I know that everyone potrays him in a different light (unlike, say Rabindranath), and so there is a risk of losing large chapters of his life if one depends on too few sources. To paraphrase Nalinikanta Sarkar, Nazrul's lifelong friend, Nazrul was like the mani-faceted Krishna, showing different people different aspects of his being--ppm18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the original author but I'd like to know what needs to be done to make this a good article. Did I do the image fair use rationales right? User:Arual 14:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Not clear from the article what 'Nielson Soundscan' is. I get it from one of the refs, but I suggest either dropping the mention of it (Is it important, does it add to the article?) or expanding just a tad to give a hint of what it is. As it is it sort of sidetracked me while reading.
You'll need to work on the citation of references and possibly the references themselves. Currently it's not clear where the information in the article comes from, some of it comes from the inline citations, some of it seems not to - for example the 'graduating magna cum laude' doesn't seem to appear in any of the notes. It may be in the single listed reference of course, but I can't check that.
The 'personal interests' section tails off into a list of facts rather than prose.
Overall it's a very positive article. I know nothing about the subject, but I do wonder whether the article is really Neutral Point of View. You may want to check for that. Is her work universally acclaimed, or have there been any negative critical reactions? If there have, those need to be worked in as well.
Go through the automated suggestions as well. They're helpful.
Turned this article from a great big structural mess to - what seems like - good enough for a "Good Article". Any comments appreciated.
Mad Jack20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should summarise the awards in a paragraph, maybe just list the most significant ones, preferably with brief comment on nomination statement or some such. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images are a problem. Three unfree images, one of which claims to be promotional, but is taken from a commercial information provider with no indication that the image was a work-for-hire for Depp or his agents. The other two are both from films, show the same character, and one is used purely decoratively in violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Jkelly04:52, 16 July 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 was a featured article candidate some time back and has been improved considerably since. Any suggestions for improvements with a view to getting it featured status are appreciated. Yomangani12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The line Some cultures fish for the oceanic whitetip shark as a delicacy or for its fin. suggests that the oceanic white tip is specifically hunted, in fact just about every shark is. It could be clearer.
The line the most common shark in its range, and perhaps the most abundant large animal in the world. is somewhat at odds with it's vulnerable status - care to cite where it came from?
I was worried about that too, I think it comes from a 1969 publication by Lineaweaver and Backus but I haven't been able to track it down further yet. If it is from there it's obviously 37 years out of date (eek) Yomangani18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information in the article about it's conservation status - given that the taxobox identifies it as vulnerable there probably is some information out theer about its threats (the fishing trade) and its prognosis. Like many pelagic sharks it may have declined masively (some species by as much as 95%) and this is important info to include. Information on it's popluations should be possible to find on Google Scholar [10][11]. The IUCN report says This formerly widespread and abundant large oceanic shark is subject to fishing pressure virtually throughout its range. It adds that for the North Atlantic it is the oceanic whitetip shark is assessed as Critically Endangered in the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic because of the enormous declines that have been reported.[12]
C. longimanus has a 'typical', although somewhat flattened shark body. Typical for a requiem shark, perhaps?
Oceanic whitetips are a draw for divers - so perhaps a mention in the human section regarding their value for tourism?
The article would benefit from fewer redlinks to not-yet-notable authors, and page numbers in the reference section as appropriate - it is simply not courteous to force someone to dig through a large book to find a single statement that may be supported there. Inline references would really be ideal. You may wish to consider Harvard referencing, see e.g. saffron. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[1]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
is considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[2]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” AZt14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article obviously needs a bit more work, but I'm stumped for what else to include in it. The photos column should be filled up if possible, but that will be very hard, unless I can find free licence images some were else on the net. The article looks pretty good and has a good format, but probably needs a copyedit and spell check etc. I want it to become featured but don't really know if it should be a featured list or article. Froggydarb09:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to learn more about the causal connection between these species and the fact that they are found in Australia. Fossil evidence? Impact of human invasion of Oz? There seem to be a small number of areas where there are no frogs; again, why? What patterns can we see in the distribution of various taxa? Is the Cane Toad the only introduced species? Should this information go in the lead? What about islands? What about the relationship to other special fauna of Oz (snakes, goannas, herons etc.)? Are there predominantly aquatic frogs? If not, is this to do with the presence of crocodiles? The article doesn't yet feel comprehensive, but it's looking good, and I'm sure with 8 to 12 weeks more work, could be an FA. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is really helpful info. However I'm not sure that there is a casual connection between Australian amphibian species, except that they are all in the same suborder. There are so many different types of habitats that Oz frogs inhabit there isn't really any connection. Froggydarb23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be information on things like the relationship between the Australian amphibian species, and others around the world. E.g. the relationship between the Myobatrachids from Australia and the Sooglosids from the Seychelle Islands. Or the relationships between the Austrlaian Hylids and Microhylids and the rest of the Hylids and Microhylids. Why New Zealand has primitive frogs and Australia doesn't, even though they were once connected. The very close connection to New Guinea, and the geological causes for this. Why there are no salamanders or caecillians in Australia etc. A lot of this I still don't know about, so I want to help to expand my knowledge, however it is pretty complicated and I need some good resources for it. --liquidGhoul01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the Myobatrachids and Sooglosids, I mean they are closely related. They were almost placed within the same family, but were seperated (can't remember why, I think it was just geography). They are closely related, and it helps to define the origins of the families and species. Knowing the relationships between the Australian Hylids and Microhylids, and those around the world helps to define the origin of the Austrlian Hylids and Microhylids. Same with the one Ranid, if it is more closely related to the Asian Ranids than the American, African or European, then Asia is, most likely, the origin of that frog (though it is simple with this species, it is much more complicated with the others). It is important to know how and where we got our frogs from. They may have evolved here, or moved from another area (and if this is the case, which area?). --liquidGhoul05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you consult many more print sources. See this Google Book search for some ideas. Also Google Scholar. You can probably get a lot of good information from the web, but print sources are still very important, especially for a phenomenon like this. Good luck! — BrianSmithson15:28, 5 July 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.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
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.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
apparently
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Too many red links. Either create stubs for those pages, or remove them. Links are also repeated several times (ie. Jill Esmond is linked in one paragraph, and then in the paragraph directly after it). The opening also needs to be redone, you repeat Academy Award three times in the first sentence, and the sentence about him being called the greatest film actor of the 20th century needs to be sourced; avoid weasel words. Try something along these lines:
That issue has been discussed on the talk page. As for the Academy Awards, whilst he was an Oscar winning actor and producer, he was only an Oscar nominated director. You see the difficulty? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell)22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also places incorrect emphasis on his film career. ie by mentioning the film career first and the stage career second it suggests the film career was the greater of the two. He was first and foremost an actor - the medium/s is/are secondary. Do we have to mention the Academy Awards in the first line of his biography as if this was his greatest achievement? The links suggested are to film director and film producer although he directed and produced quite notably for the theatre. The "greatest actor" comment as suggested is attributed to "film critics". It's just too much about film. I greatly dislike the thought of using film titles to demonstrate a "range" of roles as it's very POV. You could pick any two films to demonstrate any particular spectrum so why these two? I agree the opening needs to be redone, but I don't think this is the right way. In it's current version Academy Award appears 3 times which I think is worse than what was suggested here. Rossrs14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.svg?lang=en)
