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.
January's collaborative effort from WikiProject Formula One. Currently rated at 'B', and I suspect we could get it through a GA review, but would like to have a view from outside the project on how it reads to a non-expert and how it could be made more engaging for a non specialist audience. Thanks. 4u1e23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally good. I'd probably pass it if reviewing it for GA. A few comments:
Having a subheading for each year makes the prose a little stop-start. Removing these and simply having the sections for each constructor would improve flow.
Regazzoni was killed when the Chrysler Voyager he was driving collided head-on into the rear of a lorry If was into the rear then the two vehicles were not head-on.
Done. Although I'd like a better reference - newspaper writers are too prone to use of clichés like 'head on'. 4u1e18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that the 1980 accident ended his F1 career, but this should be stated explicitly instead of being inferred.
A couple of statements are a little too gushing e.g. his rehabilitation became an inspirational story. A couple of things need referencing: Regazzoni won back his racing license despite the prejudices of the authorities and Tecno offered Regazzoni the use of one of their F3 chassis for 1967, where his reliable, fast performances earnt him the offer of a works Tecno drive in Formula Two for the following year.
What were the reasons for his changes of team?
I don't know whether the material will be available, but the Personal life section could do with being fleshed out a little. For example, where did he live in adult life?
Some sections such as "Sports car racing" have no citations, and others such as "1970-1972: Ferrari" or "After Formula One" are undercited. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph.
Comment: With some of the F1 paras it's because there is no more information there than can be gleaned from the championship results. I don't believe in using inline refs for race results, because the articles would be full to overflowing with them, so that's the one thing I use a 'blanket' reference for (see 'Footnotes'). I think the real problem you've identified is that those sections could use beefing up in terms of content. I'll see what can be done. 4u1e09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"1978: Shadow" is also stubby. Maybe you could merge it with the following years, but again this may be just my personal preference!--Yannismarou13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason that season is always covered very briefly. If anything it would be merged with the preceding season (also with a small team, also not much to say). 4u1e22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I just say thanks to Yannismarou and Oldelpaso for the useful comments. This has been (sadly) far more helpful than a standard Peer Review, I really appreciate the time you've taken to comment. 4u1e22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MoS single years like "in 1790" should not be linked. Only full dates: "in January 11790 ..."
"He died at sea in 1806, near Charleston, South Carolina,[1] possibly due to yellow fever.[2]" IMO it is not nice to have a stubby paragraph like this in the lead.
"Early life" is stubby. Merge or expand.
"He is known, however, to have served in the Triangular trade of South Carolina, aboard the Pacific." Known by whom? Citation needed.
"On September 30, 1787", "On September 17, 1788". Per above, the dates here should be linked.
"Additional ships to explore the coast under the command of Captain George Vancouver.[citation needed] ...". These [citation needed]s should be fixed.
"And in 1788 Gray had attempted to enter a large river..." Why do you start the sentence here with "and"?
"Circumnavigation" is stubby and uncited.
"Gray then finished filling his cargo hold with pelts and set sail for China. In Canton, Gray again traded his cargo for tea. He then returned to Boston.[1] Gray returned to Boston in 1793, after again circumnavigating the globe." Repetitive and choppy prose.
"Legacy" is uncited.
In some of your printed sources used as "Notes", you have no pages.
The websites you have in "References" are not used as inline citations if I'm not wrong. If I'm right, then they are "External links" not "References".
"However, it has been alleged that she had intended to marry Edward, an engagement between them was even gossiped about in the papers, but historians assume that this is simply a case of misreporting."
Thanks for reading another one of my long articles! I've removed the above, the same sentence occured in Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, where I've now provided a reference to the newspaper which broke the story. The assumption of misreporting comes from Sarah Bradford's biography (reference given). DrKiernan08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Proposal" section needs cleaning up and turning into prose. Any critical reviews of the drama programs in question are welcomed, particularly if they comment on the portrayal of the man in question. I don't mind reading the articles, I'm just no good at giving feedback unless they're music related. Most editors complain about 1. a. which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose", but I'm ill equipped to comment on that criterion. [And I'm ill-equipped to write it! DrKiernan 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)] If you want 1. a. checked, politely ask Deckiller if he can give a peer review of the article as he may be able to help. LuciferMorgan01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've cleaned that up by changing the words so that they better match what H. C. G. Matthew has written in the reference given at the end of the paragraph. DrKiernan08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The official Royal Tour historian, Gustave Lanctot, stated: "When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence, the Statute of Westminster had assumed full reality: the King of Canada had come home." All quotes need citations. LuciferMorgan08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been busy! It's a lot of work to put together this many articles!
Yes, I'm not going to nominate this many articles at once again. It's far too much work! DrKiernan11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Here are my suggestions.[reply]
George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor) (14 December 1895 - 6 February 1952) was the King of Great Britain, Ireland, each of the British Dominions, and Emperor of India, from 11 December 1936. - from December 1936 to ?
I deliberately left that hanging because it is different for Ireland and India. Actually, I was never very satisfied with the way it was phrased. I have tried a new wording. DrKiernan08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would suggest that you expand the lead to cover his entire life.
The day was the anniversary of the death of his great grandfather, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort. - by the time we've gotten to this sentence, we've forgotten that we are talking about the day he was born - rework or remind us
Do we really need to know who all of his godparents were?
I didn’t put these in, they were there when I first came to the page. I guess they show the connections of the family. I have moved them to a footnote. DrKiernan08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite coming bottom of the class in the final examination, Albert progressed to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth in 1911. - awkwardly phrased first clause (unless this is an idiom of British English that I am unfamiliar with)
In 1920 he met Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the youngest daughter of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and set his sights on marrying her. - "set his sights" sounds colloquial
I think that is possible to build the births of their two children into the article rather than listing them as bullet points. Also, the birth of these children should also probably be mentioned more prominently in your Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon article.
Rising Indian nationalism made the welcome which the royal couple would have received likely to be muted at best, and a prolonged absence from Britain would have been undesirable in the tense period before World War II, without the strategic advantages of the North American tour which in the event was undertaken in 1939. - awkward last phrase
However, when the King and Queen greeted Chamberlain on his return from negotiating the Munich Agreement in 1938, they invited him to appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with them, which was an exceptional association of the monarchy with a politician. - "exceptional" is odd diction; also, explain further why this incident was so unusual and what it meant
The entire trip was a measure intended to placate the strong isolationist tendencies among the North American public vis-à-vis the developing tensions in Europe. - is "placate" the right word?
Although the aim of the tour was nevertheless mainly political, to shore up Atlantic support for Britain in any upcoming war, the King and Queen were enthusiastically received by the Canadian public and the fear that George would be unfavourably compared to his predecessor, Edward VIII, was dispelled. - awkwardly phrased
The trip demonstrated that as early as 1939 it was deemed appropriate for the novel doctrine of the discrete crowns of the Commonwealth Realms to be ostentatiously asserted. - what does this mean?
The "Honours" section seems ridiculously long to me, but perhaps this is standard in royal biographies?
Yes, I agree it is ridiculously long. It takes ages to download on a slow connection, we almost gave up on my mother's dial-up. I can't see anything this long on any other royal page. The Honours of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon are a separate article. So, I will try moving this section to a sub-page. DrKiernan08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some uncited statements that begin "Some say..."
Would you mind expanding on this point a little? I've used citation templates except when referring to a specific page in one of the references, where I've just used Authorname, p.No. Thanks, again. DrKiernan11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the notes have just the author and the page number and some of the notes (12, 13, 15, 28, 29, 31) have the entire citation. Why? Usually, as you know, one gives the entire citation first and then refers only to the author's name afterwards. Sometimes on wikipedia people eliminate the first complete citation, though - it's a wikipedia thing. Therefore, I could not tell if you were following the standard scholarly practice of fully citing the first appearance of a source or not - it was confusing. Is that clear? I feel like that was a convoluted explanation. Awadewit11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is absolutely clear. Notes 12,13,etc. are only cited once, and are slightly off topic, so I haven't put them into the references and give all details. As the others are in the references section, I chose not to duplicate the details in the notes section and just use Author, page (i.e.wikipedia style). In fact, the article was originally structured with full citations first and then just author afterwards but I then changed it for the sole reason of shortening the page slightly by removing duplicate material. Now, that isn't a very good reason so I'm quite happy to move it back to scholarly form now that I understand your comment. DrKiernan12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another nice article of yours. Some minor remarks:
From the lead: "Albert served in the navy during World War I, and after the war took on the usual round of public engagements." "As the heir presumptive Albert ascended the throne as George VI, the third monarch of the House of Windsor." So here he is "Albert", but then you say: "George VI was born at York Cottage", and "George VI's birthday (14 December 1895) was the anniversary of the death of his great...". I don't like this alternation of names. IMO it is inconsistent. I see this alternation continues in the next sections as well. Anyway, this may be my personal preference.
"He was baptised at St Mary Magdalene's Church near Sandringham three months later.[3]" I don't think this has to be a seperate paragraph. After all, it is stubby like that.
"However, Edward VIII chose to abdicate his crown to marry a divorcée; it was by reason of this unforeseeable abdication, unique in British history, that George VI came to the throne." is this necessary here? You said the same thing in the lead, and you will further analyse it in the next sections. It looks to me like a repetition.
"Neville Chamberlain lost the support of the British House of Commons and was replaced as Prime Minister by Winston Churchill." This phrase looks to me seamlessly connected with the rest of the paragraph.
"In 1950 India became a republic, within the Commonwealth, and George VI ceased to be King. India recognised George's new title as Head of the Commonwealth." Did he remain King of Pakistan?
Is the "See also" section necessary with just one link? Personally, I would get somehow rid of it (e.g. by incorporating its only link in the main text, if you regard it as necessary).--Yannismarou16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, not enough prose to call long. I would say the article, down to the ==Death== section is overall well-written and comprehensive. However, and as noted, the rest of the article needs a major clean-up. The 'quips' section is funny trivia, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia (except maybe sprinkled here and there or rolled-into a general 'public image and perception' section where the anecdotes are used as examples of such and such image of the Queen mum - read on). Also, kill the list in the ==Criticism== section, rename it to something more NPOV like ==Public perception and image== and add both the good and bad. Do that, and I think you have a good chance at FAC. --mav03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks. I've re-written the final sections. But they still need a little work (for example, I've noticed there's a comment which needs a citation). DrKiernan09:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticisms" and "Reported quips" need changing from their listiness into smooth, cohesive prose which tie the respective sections as their wholes. They need intros and then their main parts all tied together. LuciferMorgan01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It was said that her popularity was on account of her coming from a more common background than that of past Queens."
Unfortunately, I can't find that statement in my copy of Fraser (the book has gone through many editions and revisions, so I can't tell which one the editor who added that comment was using). Consequently, as we don't know who said what when, I've removed the sentence. DrKiernan10:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"..and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward."
Can you cite the fact that the Canadian and U.S. public were extremely enthusiastic please? Unless cited, someone can deem it original interpretation. LuciferMorgan02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The widowed queen also oversaw the restoration of the remote Castle of Mey on the Caithness coast of Scotland, which later became her favourite home."
"Before the marriage of Diana Spencer to Prince Charles, and after Diana's death, the Queen Mother, known for her charm and theatrical flair, was by far the most popular member of the British Royal Family."
On what are these opinions based? Polls? Can you cite these opinions please? namely as concerns her popularity and that she was known for her charm and theatrical flair. LuciferMorgan02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, her thwarting of the ambitions of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (albeit considerably less forthrightly than that of Queen Mary), and by her sheer endurance. In her later years, she became known for her longevity. Her birthdays became times of celebration and, as a popular figure, she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole."
"The Queen Mother's honours were read out at her funeral, held in the United Kingdom, as follows: "Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother, Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Lady of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Lady of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India, Grand Master and Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order upon whom had been conferred the Royal Victorian Chain, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, Relict of His Majesty King George the Sixth and Mother of Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness."
Can you citate the "Centenarian" subsection please, especially as concerns the Royal family expressing concern at her fall and the Queen Mother insisting on standing up? Thanks. LuciferMorgan02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although legally Edward could have married Mrs Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that if he rejected their advice that he forbear to marry Mrs Simpson they would be obliged to resign: this would have led to a general election and irreparably ruined his status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice."
Which ministers? Where does the general election conclusion etc. at the end come from? - to arrive at a conclusion is a summary of the effects, and therefore someone / some people must have arrived at this. Can you citate this please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan08:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All except one member of the British cabinet (Duff Cooper) were opposed to the marriage, as were at least the majority of the Dominion Prime Ministers. If I put in the ministers' names, it would have to either be a long-list, including the Dominions, or only Baldwin, which would lead to accusations of UK-centrism. I would rather not go to into too much detail in this article, as Elizabeth played no part in the abdication (she was conveniently suffering from 'flu throughout the entire crisis). The information is only included in order to provide context. I have altered the wording slightly (as a general election would have been unlikely since the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties were all opposed to the marriage), and provided a reference. DrKiernan15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The location of her birth remains uncertain, but reputedly she was born in her parents' London home at Belgrave Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens, or in a horse-drawn ambulance on the way to hospital. - This needs to be an "either...or" sentence.
Do we know why Elizabeth changed her mind and married Prince Albert?
No. I believe everything written on that subject so far is supposition, although there are various theories. Apparently, she was always very cagey about it, and refused to acknowledge ever saying no in the first place. I don’t know of any reliable sources for why she changed her mind. I think Sarah Bradford said it might have been because she waited for him to ask her personally (previously he’d only asked through intermediaries), Hugo Vickers admits point blank that we can only guess. DrKiernan15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although legally Edward could have married Mrs. Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that they would be obliged to resign if he insisted; this would have dragged the King into a general election thus ruining irreparably his status as a politically neutral constitutional Monarch. - This sentence or one like it belongs in your Edward VIII article. It makes the reasons for abdication clearer.
When the ex-king and his wife were created Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Elizabeth supported George VI's decision to withhold from Simpson the style of Royal Highness.[13] She was later quoted as referring to the Duchess as "that woman". - it is a little unclear who you are referring to in these sentences - the pronoun referents are unclear
The Canadian portion of the tour was extremely extensive, from coast to coast and back — they also briefly detoured into the United States, visiting the Roosevelts in the White House and at their Hudson River Valley estate — and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward. - the "extremely's" are unnecessary
During World War II, the King and Queen became symbols of the nation's resistance. Shortly after the declaration of war, The Queen's Book of the Red Cross was conceived: the book was ready for printing in two months. - explain book for the uninitiated
There are some missing citations in this article. The "Centenarian" and "Death" sections in particular are light. Moreover, the article starts to sound POV without them. Other reviewers have mentioned this as well, I think.
"The location of her birth remains uncertain ..." Why? Just a question of mine; you don't have to include the answer in the article!
For most of her life it was assumed that she was born in the family home at St Walden Bury, because that's where the birth was registered. However, in 1980 Clarence House admitted that she was actually born in London, "in the back of a taxi for all I know", Elizabeth is supposed to have said. Her staff amended that to a horse-drawn ambulance. Her biographers have since shown that in August 1900 Lady Strathmore was at their London residence, not the Bury. Hence, the three touted locations. DrKiernan
"He initially proposed to Elizabeth in 1921, but she initialy turned ..." Repetitive prose.
"this would have irreparably ruined Edward's status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice.[16] He chose to abdicate.[17] Edward chose to abdicate ... " Again repetitive, and a bit choppy.
I know that the "Queen mother" is a symbol and a beloved personality in UK, but with expressions like "Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, and by her sheer endurance" you may have problems with the no POV policy of Wikipedia. In general, do not overuse adjectives characterising subjectively a person ("charismatic" for Edward, "charmy", "shrewd", "canny" for the Queen mother). It is another thing, of course, if you quote somebody else telling these things.
All biographers (even the ones who hate her) agree that she was charming and popular; and all biographers (even the ones who adore her) agree that behind the image she was tough as old boots. The sentences you quote are supported by the references. If these comments were omitted, the article would no longer be fully inclusive of relevant material. DrKiernan08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Kelley and others also allege that during World War II Elizabeth did not abide by the rationing regulations to which the rest of the population was subject[52][54] however, this point is contradicted by the official records;[55][56]". Is the punctuation OK here? And something else: If you want to avoid to have citations in a row, there are ways to combine them in one citation. You can check Tourette syndrome or Battle of Edson's Ridge.
This looks to be a very sound article, and anything I highlight is likely to be more of a niggle than a full-on complaint.
Is there not an appropriate picture of her available?
"Parents George & Annie (née Millward) Stanley" - change the ampersand (&) to an "and". This also needs doing in the caption of the picture in the section "Yoko". Changed.
I find the first paragraph in "The Stanley Family" a little broken-up and confusing. Done
I think "Career" could be better written - the tone isn't quite hitting the nail on the head.
"—and running "as fast as my legs could carry me"." - for one, I'm not sure the punctuation is perfect here. Secondly, it might make more sense if you changed the quote to "as fast as [her] legs could carry [her].", but that's purely a matter of personal preference. Done
"...in the smallest bedroom above the front door.[13][12]" - I'd change it so the references were in numerical order.Same goes for "...which was around the corner from Mendips.[26][15]".Done
"Mimi (in typical fashion) said..." - I'm not sure if the tone's quite right here.It doesn't bother me too much, but folks at FAC might pick up on it. Done
I advise assimilating the song sample into the bulk of the text somewhere. It looks anachronistic and out of place at the end. Done
The main things to consider are these: give it a quick copy-edit. It's in good shape but could probably do with a shakedown; try printing it out and reading it through with red pen in hand. Some of the sentences don't flow onto each other quite right, and this might help rectify that. The other thing I think might need some help is the chronological flow. Simply illustrating when things happened might be the easiest way to do this - for instance, putting years in brackets after paragraph headers. For instance, "John (1940-1956)" or whatever. Again, this is a matter of personal preference and not a must. I hope some of these pointers have helped; good luck! Seegoon20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the lead. You article is a biography of Mimi Smith; not of her husband or Lennon. In the lead you speak more about them than for Mimi Smith. And why is her husband's name bolded? Done
Seegon is right about the photo. The infobox would be nicer, if you could add one.
Again in the lead, you do not mentio dates of birth and death. Done
Sometimes the prose gets choppy. See, for instance, the first (and the last one as well) paragraph in "The Stanley Family".
The two last stubby paragraphs of "Marriage and 'Mendips'" look to me seamlessly connected with the rest of it.
"George owned half of the Smiths' family farm house, called 'The Cottage', which was around the corner from Mendips.[26][15]" Wouldn't be better like that: "George owned half of the Smiths' family farm house, called 'The Cottage', which was around the corner from Mendips.[15][26]" Done. There are also other similar cases throughout the article.
IMO "Song Sample" section is irrelevant to the biography. I agree with Seegoon: incorporate the sample itself somewhere in the rest of the article. Done
Congrats on the GA and I agree that aiming for FA on this article is eminently sensible. It's a relatively short article and is a nice one to tackle before trying again with the longer articles like Paul McCartney.
I too think it needs a copyedit from a really top notch editor. I'm not one of those but I'll certainly have a look and tweak what I can.
The lead is particularly weak. It doesn't appear to be very well structured at all. Try and group related information into paragraphs, keep the message on target, and summarise the article. Again, I'll have a play with this but I can't promise I'll improve it much :) --kingboyk13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank all three of you lovely people for spending time going through Mimi's underwear :)) As you all wrote, it needs a good look-through for dodgy passages/sentences, and a good scrub with a soft brush. I thank you again. (Mimi Smith an FA? That would certainly put the icing on a very big cake... :) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde16:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24 is a little lacking in detail. Is that a book? Or just something he said at the festival? Can we even reference that?
It's something he said at the modern drummer festival. The video is on Youtube and since it would breach copyright i don't know how to add more detail.
Breach of what copyright? If the video was taken by the uploader, then we can cite it as a source (as long as we are certain it is genuine, I think it is reasonable to believe it is) if it was ripped from a documentary, live stream or DVD or something, we can cite that. Alternatively, have you taken a look on the Internet archives for the relevant concert? J Milburn12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to slip between calling the drum set TAMA and Tama- I'm no drummer, so I am not sure how correct that is.
The last paragraph of 'Return to Slayer', the second set of quotation marks are not closed.
The line "Apocalyptica Lombardo enjoyed playing a duo – and asked if Lombardo would like to record a song for their next album." doesn't seem to make much sense, and that paragraph repeats 'Lombardo' a lot, too.
The first paragraph is, in my opinion, slightly confusing and doesn't flow well. It should state why Lombardo is notable; I recommend moving the contents of the second para up to the first, and perhaps removing the show-and-tell sentence. Your call though.
I thought Origin was meant for bands only? Noting his origin and birthplace is a little ambiguious. Also, the flags aren't really required.
Grade school is a little inspecific (I note that the grade in which he brought in his drums in mentioned above though). You may want to replace it with an age or something; grades are usually country-specific.
"100,000 years" -> "100,000 Years". "Talk of the town" is quite colliqual as well. "Word of Lombardo's ability spread" sounds a little more formal.
"This inspired his musical interest in drums, which resulted in him joining the school band playing the marching drum, although he thought the marching drum was "not for him"." Seems like a run-on sentence to me. "Musical" in this context seems redundant.
... by listening to the record repeatedly and word of Lombardo's ability spread for being able to perform the drum solo. Due to his new found popularity, he was asked if he could play the song "Moby Dick" by Led Zeppelin." To me, this sounds awkward. Could be better phrased as "... by listening to the record repeatedly. Word soon spread of Lombardo's ability to perform the song's drum solo, and he was asked to perform Led Zeppelin's "Moby Dick". (Also, who asked him? School friend perhaps?)
"Due to him arriving home at 4:00AM, his parents threatened to put him in a military school." This is unclear; was it every night, or just the once? CloudNine13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The research and references are fine, but the writing style needs significant editing to bring it up to encyclopedic standard.
The article often bumps together parts A and C without mention of part B of the story.
"With the drumkit, Lombardo purchased his first record..." implies that he got a really bad deal trading in the kit at a pawn shop for one LP! This sentence should be rewritten. Did his father include the record along with the kit?
Moby Dick reference jumps from "was not familiar with the material" to "after doing so" (playing the song with mastery, I assume you meant). Need a transitional sentence.
"...parents threatened to put him in a military school." Did they withdraw the threat? Did he have to give up late night events until leaving home?
"As Slayer's line-up was complete..." Did the band already have everyone but a drummer? The article jumps from King's own guitar collection, presumably at his home, to a full band taking the show on the road.
Hoglan appears and promptly disappears from the article. Is he really relevant?
Lombardo's wife appears without a mention of when they were married.
"Grip" section jumps from appropriate past tense into present tense discussion of events in the past.
He had to miss the 2005 Fantomas tour. Did he ever tour with them?
Should change to "Ten years after departing from Slayer..." and include the name of the manager.
The Christy quote should either cite the exact words for "blown away," or the summary should be rewritten to a less cliche term.Finnish should be capitalized.
Thanks for the comments. I agree with you on the poorly written part in some places and alot of sentences start with Lombardo did...He then.. I'll see how i can fix this up and the other things that still remain. Appreciate the comments. M3tal H3ad11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very responsive to constructive criticism, and I see a lot of improvements in the article. Good job! One more minor point: when describing a purchase made in Los Angeles, you don't need to include "USD" - just "$1,100" is enough. Are you working on other articles? VisitorTalk16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Lombardo *insert verb here* has been a problem from the start and I'm slowly cutting them down. I recently re-wrote two articles, Silent Civilian and The Blackening (still needs a recording section and do-away with the "history") M3tal H3ad07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit of the entire article. However, the prose still needs attention and is the weakest component of the article as it stand. I recommend having another editor read and copyedit the page. The article in general seems ok, but I'm not too sure about the exensive use of reviews. Certainly there neds to be critical recognition of Lombardo's work, but since he's only a component of a complete group, single out sentences in reviews that mention him often seems like stretching the point. I'll try and offer more comments soon. WesleyDodds08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the point as regards the review, since it gives readers a perspective of Lombardo's work as a whole. I do agree the prose needs work though, but I can't think of anyone else who will copyedit the article further. LuciferMorgan09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought: could the reviews be better utilized in the "musical characteristics" section? As part of the biography they seem somewhat out-of-place. WesleyDodds09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another in my series of NASA engineers and managers. This article is up for GA status at the moment, but given the backlog over there it may take some time to be dealt with; I hope that it's not a problem to have it going through both processes at once. I'm hoping to nominate it as a FAC in the not-too-distant future, so any comments or suggestions for improvement would be very welcome. MLilburne10:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You put the notice about the GA promotion, in order to reprimand me for delaying to review the article, hmmm?! (joke) But it seems I knew what I was (not) doing; the article is very nice as usual. Congratulations for GA promotion, and some minor remarks, which I hope could help:
"Shea found the time to teach at the university and to hold down a job at Bell Labs.[1][2]" You could avoid to have citations in a row like here, by combining them in one citation. There are articles you could check for this (Tourette syndrome, Battle of Edson's Ridge).
Fixed.
"His contribution to the Titan I project was significant; as George Mueller writes, "he contributed a considerable amount of engineering innovation and project management skill and was directly responsible for the successful development of this pioneering guidance system."" Maybe you could avoid the slight repetition in the prose here.
Oh dear, I can't believe I didn't notice that! Fixed.
"In 1961 Shea was hired by Space Technology Laboratories, a division of TRW Inc., where he continued to work on ballistic missile systems." One of the one-sentence, stubby sentences I do not like! But, again, it is not something grave.
I don't like it either, but unfortunately the bare fact is all the information that I have available. I'll continue to think about my options.
Not much info about his personal life. Wasn't he married?
Yes, he was, but again, all I have is the bare fact. I don't, for example, know when he was married, so that makes it hard to work it into the body of the article. I have mentioned his family in the context of who survived him after his death.
"In film and fiction" is stubby, but I'm not sure what should be done with it.
I'm not sure either. I've searched for reviews mentioning Shea's role, but have found nothing, so just stated that it existed. I own both the book and the miniseries, and could put more details in from them, but am hesitant for fear of an OR tone. I have also considered just removing the section entirely, since there are not many options for improvement. Which of the three options do you think is best?
I remain in awe that you manage to peer review all the article listed here! Your help, whether late or not (also a joke!), is greatly appreciated. I've left my responses above. Thanks again. MLilburne10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plek's comments
Another excellent article in the making! It still needs some work, though, but it's shaping up nicely indeed. Here are my comments (in pseudo-random order).
I am making my way through Chariots for Apollo at the moment, having started with Chapter 5 (1963 and beyond). Obviously, I am taking note of Shea's role in particular. What strikes me is that, time and again, Shea is credited with successfully resolving differences between feuding partners and bringing them together: the NASA centers amongst themselves, the centers versus NASA HQ, NASA versus the many contractors, etc. While his engineering background is a significant influence, it seems to me that Shea's greatest asset during this period is his ability to cajole, convince and unite the many different and differing groups involved in Apollo.
Having said all that, I find the insight above somewhat missing from the article. In particular, the "Program manager" section seems to focus more on the pain in the ass he (undoubtedly) was, but leaves his accomplishments rather underdeveloped. Look at the opening sentences of the four main paragraphs: "Shea's relationship with the engineers at North American was a difficult one.", "Shea was a controversial figure...", "The friction between Shea and Marshall..." and "While many engineers considered Shea to be abrasive". Not really flattering, is it? Granted, it does end with "he was taking an effort that had been foundering and driving it forward", but you might want to balance things a bit, and explore the management side of his role somewhat further.
Note: after reading the article again, it did seem more balanced than I thought it was first time around. I'm retaining the comment, though, to illustrate what my first impressions were after just reading the "Program manager" section. It might be useful somehow.
Other comments:
rather, he hoped to become a track star — It might be due to cultural differences, but it wasn't immediately clear to me what a "track star" is. I'm assuming something like "professional athlete" is intended here.
Fixed.
In 1946, he was commissioned as an ensign in the Navy, and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics in the same year. — Isn't "in the same year" redundant?
Fixed.
In the part beginning with Shea's speciality was systems engineering ... , there's some repetition: "contribution/contributions/contributed".
Fixed.
In December 1961, NASA invited Shea to interview... — How did NASA find Shea and why did they invite him for an interview?
Added information.
When Shea first began to consider the issue in 1962, most NASA engineers—including Wernher von Braun— — At that time, von Braun was Director of Marshall Center, right? I'm not sure if designating him as one of the "NASA engineers", as the sentence seems to do, is therefore entirely accurate or appropriate.
Fixed.
Holmes put the letter on my desk and said, "Figure it out." — Great quote!
Thanks! I always enjoy using oral histories.
Only now I discover that you already described Shea's role in uniting the NASA centers. Hmmm... this alters my initial comment about the "Program manager" slightly, but I think the argument is still valid. Somewhat. ish. Just see what you make of it.
It is still a valid point, I think, and I'll discuss it once I've worked my way through the smaller issues.
Despite the best efforts of Shea and of North American — Smells a teeny weeny POV-ish to me.
Removed this phrase altogether... on reflection it doesn't seem necessary.
During pad testing, the spacecraft suffered a number of technical problems, including a glitchy communications system. — Reads a bit strange: I don't think a glitchy comms system is a technical problem; it's causing it. It's the glitches in communication that is the technical problem. Maybe I'm just nitpicking here (or just plain wrong).
Either way sounds fine to me, but I will change the phrasing.
Backup commander Wally Schirra — Not explained what Shirra was a backup commander of, exactly.
Fixed.
I know the article isn't about them, but considering how the Apollo 1 fire affected Shea, shouldn't the astronauts be identified by name?
Yes, good point, I've done this.
By contrast, North American executives blamed NASA management for its decision to pressurize the command module with pure oxygen, in which almost any material—including Velcro, with which the cabin was filled—would instantly burst into flames. — Well, we'd still need a spark for that to happen, right? Currently the sentence implies spontaneous combustion.
Indeed it does! Fixed.
...Joseph Shea remained haunted by the feeling that he, personally, was responsible for the deaths of three astronauts. For years after the fire, he displayed the portrait given to him by the Apollo 1 crew in the front hallway of his own home. — I think the article currently gives insufficient evidence of Shea remaining haunted by feelings of guilt. Only the portrait is given as evidence of that (at least, in this section). Isn't it possible that he just liked the picture?
You're right, it does need more evidence. (The guilt that he felt is not really in question, and I think I sort of took it for granted.) I'll think about what to add.
On 7 April it was announced... — By whom? To whom?
Not specified in the sources I have. It may have been a press release but I wouldn't want to speculate.
(He was not called to testify before the congressional inquiry.) — I find the parenthetical thought slightly out of place here. Is there a way to elegantly integrate it into the prose somewhere (and to lose the brackets)?
Fixed, I think.
Is it known what those "health reasons" were, exactly, and what he died of? After setting up signs of dementia praecox earlier in the article, I think the conclusion should be more specific. The article now sort-of implies that he became demented, but isn't really explicit about it.
Unfortunately I don't have any further details about his health problems or his death. It's my personal opinion that the symptoms reported in 1967 and 1993 sound rather similar, but to say anything along those lines would almost certainly be OR, and I'm certainly not speculating on what they were symptoms of. I quoted Kraft because it was a very vivid description of Shea's behavior, not because I was endorsing his amateur diagnosis of dementia praecox (in other words, schizophrenia).
Shea was certainly healthy enough to give two very coherent, if not particularly informative, oral histories in 1998. But he did say, in the context of the ISS inquiry, "That's when I got sick." So this is all I know. If you have any more suggestions as to how I could best deal with the limited amount of information available to me, I would be most grateful.
And that's all I can think of for now! Thank you for listening, and good luck! Feel free to call again if you need any help. --Plek22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very detailed comments. It is very helpful to have feedback from someone with the backround knowledge to call me on issues of balance and bias as well as of presentation. Unfortunately I have some academic commitments today, so won't be able to respond to your more substantive points immediately, but rest assured that I'll be working my way through the list when and as I'm able. I'm thinking that maybe I ought to re-read "Chariots for Apollo" too! Thanks again. MLilburne10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked my way through the small points now. (There's one point above on which I'd welcome further feedback.) It's my opinion, after considering your comments, that the article may be a little unbalanced and that I need to spend a bit more time discussing Shea's successes as a manager, and how he got his reputation as a brilliant engineer and manager. It may take another couple of days before I get it all pulled together... MLilburne18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the Mary Higgins Clark article to include substantial biographical information. I don't feel knowledgeable enough yet to set a quality scale for this (or any other) article. I would like to know where others feel this ranks on quality scale, and what might need to be improved to move it up the ladder.
In my opinion the article is B-class at the moment. With some hard work on the prose style and with the improvements listed below, I think it would have a good chance of achieving GA status.
Including a fair use picture of Clark to illustrate the article would make it look a lot better.
At the moment the article doesn't have anything on critical reactions to her books. I'm sure that there must be reviews out there that you could quote from. The lead discusses the themes in her writing, but the body of the article doesn't really back that up. In order to achieve breadth of coverage, therefore, I think you really need a new section.
It's understandable that you're having difficulty finding sources, but at the moment the article really relies too much on her memoir as a source. This may well be a problem at the GA level; it will certainly be a problem if you try to improve it any more.
It's difficult to specify exactly, but the major problem with the article is the prose style. The sentence structure is a bit simplistic, and the prose fails to flow from one sentence to another. There are places in the article, such as the last paragraph in "Writing career," where I wonder what relationship the sentences have to one another and why they've been put in the order that they have. The "Widowhood" section has three paragraphs in a row starting with "In [year]", and this should really be fixed.
There are quite a few facts in the article that seemed like trivia to me, and I question whether they really belong in an encyclopedia article. For example, the fact that Clark's mother-in-law encouraged her to buy high-quality furniture. What does this really tell us about the woman?
The lead is short, and does not constitute a proper summary of the article. Check WP:LEAD.
"The story of Mary Higgins Clark begins at Ellis Island in 1905, when a twenty-one year old Irishman". This is no encyclopedic prose. This is the literary prose a biographer of hers would use in a book about her.
"Widowhood" is a sub-section of "Early years"? Something is wrong with the structure there. In general, there are too much details about her early life in comparaison with the rest of the article. Keep a better balance, and if you want to keep all this material follow WP:SS, and create a sub-article (Early life of Mary Higgins Clark).
"Personal Life" is a stubby section. It is also problematic: Why is her first marriage, and the life with her children described in "Early years" and "Widowhood", and her second marriage here? Again, something is going wrong with the structure.
Some reviewers prefer "Awards" or "Titles" to be prose and not lists. And I am also afraid that "Recognition" and "Awards" are overlapping.
I agree with MLiburne that the dominance of one source in "References" could be problematic. And, by the way where is the ISBN of "Clark, Mary Higgins (2002). Kitchen Privileges: A Memoir. Simon and Schuster".--Yannismarou19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor: Alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.
After comparing my revamp of this article to other "A" or "FA" music biography articles (including the "FA"-rated AC/DC article), I feel the Butthole Surfers bio is deserving of an "A" rating, if not "FA" status. If it isn't, I'd like any advice as to what needs to be done to get it there.
I haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet, but for what it's worth, here are a few comments on FA style:
The lead is very long for what would be (without the lists of bad members and discography) a fairly short FA. You might want to aim for three paragraphs instead of five.
The trivia section is likely to be problematic. You should either remove it or integrate the facts into the main body of the article.
It would be helpful to have a references section that lists all the sources that are cited in the footnotes. It makes it easier to look up a source when you come to the tenth example of (say) "Azzerad" in the footnotes and can't necessarily track down the first citation.
Thanks; have trimmed the intro per your suggestion, and will work on cleaning up the "References" section later today. As for Trivia, will work the key facts into the article and delete the rest. Thehaikumaster12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I mean a references section that is separate from the citations section. There's nothing wrong with abbreviating your citations as long as there's an easy place to look for the whole source. As an example, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing you to one of my own FAs... say, Chris Kraft. MLilburne13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for clarifying (I was indeed thinking you meant expanding the reference notes). I'll check out your article, and should have separate sections by tonight at the latest (as well as doing away with "Trivia". As to the intro, it has been trimmed considerably. Thehaikumaster14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per MLilburne's suggestions, have: turned old "References" into "Notes" section, and added new "References" section; removed "Trivia," adding the two most interesting points into the main body; and shortened the intro considerably. Any additional suggestions/ratings/recommendations/etc. are appreciated. And thanks again, MLilburne, the suggestions were definite improvements. Thehaikumaster23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some reviewers do not like the red links in the lead, but this is not something very important. In general, the article has many red links; maybe you could vreate some stubs.
Try not to cite in the middle of the sentences. Do it only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis reasons.
Second paragraph in "Legend grows (1984-1987)" has no citations.
Try to avoid to have completely uncited paragraphs.
You may face a problem with many of your images: the album covers are fair use images for the articles about the albums themselves; I am not sure the use of these images is fair in this particular article. I have some doubts, but I am not specialist in this domain. You could ask Robth.
"Perhaps fittingly, it is one of the band's most schizophrenic releases, with half the material being as extreme as their previous work and other songs sounding far more conventional." IMO this assertion needs citing.
Understood, and in all honesty the insane amount of red links in the article weren't my idea, but another user's; will weed out all but the most noteworthy ones, and work up some stubs for them. [This is done. Thehaikumaster01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Actually, the 2nd paragraph's citation can be found after the first sentence of the third paragraph. Is there a certain protocol for such situations? I'll see if I can figure that one out. [This is done. Thehaikumaster01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks, I'll see if Robth has any advice. The Surfers are extremely difficult to find free pictures of, so I may have to see if I can dig up some old promotional photos from previous record labels; not sure what the legality of that is either, but I'll look into it. As it turns out, this does appear to be allowed, as seen in other FA music bios. A picture of the three remaining "original" members has also been added, and deemed by a Wiki administrator as within the boundaries of fair use. The Haiku Master23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the last two, it looks like a source was left out or unintentionally deleted. Should have them added back in before too much longer. [This is done, and as it turned out the info about Pinkus' unhappiness wasn't in the listed source, so I removed that. Thehaikumaster01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Although I started this article, it used to be a simple bio of 2-3 paragraphs. After his assassination, a huge number of editors, Turkish and Armenian, collaborated on the article. Therefore, I am not submitting this as the author of the article, I am one of the contributors.
The article looks fairly good. I would like to have feedback on steps necessary to take it further, to make it GA and FA. Best regards, --Free smyrnan08:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for GA status. These are my suggestions for FA status:
"(Armenian: Հրանդ Տինք, IPA: [həɹɑnt diːnk][1])". Why do you find it necessary to cite here? And when I trygo to the NY article you cite and link, I go to a NY membership page, asking me username. Done
"1915-17 massacres of Armenians". Hmmmm ... The article's title is Armenian genocide. I understand your sensitivity on this issue, but you may also face criticism for the particular terminology you chose here instead of "genocide". Done
changed sentence. It now mentions Armenian genocide and is linked as such.
"Regarding these statements Dink was prosecuted three times for insulting Turkishness[2][4][5]". Two remarks:
Try not to cite in the middle of a sentence. Do it only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis reasons. Done
"Hrant Dink was assassinated in Istanbul on January 19, 2007, allegedly by Ogün Samast, an ultra-nationalist Turk. While Samast has since been taken into custody, pictures of Dink's alleged killer holding up a Turkish flag." Maybe a bit repetitive. You could just say "pictures of Samast".
"He was born". Personally I don't like to start a new section with "He ..."; "Dink was ..." looks better to me. Done
Reading "Early life" I see some choppy prose: "He was born in Malatya on 15 September 1954 to Serkis Dink (known as Haşim Kalfa), a tailor from Gürün, and Gülvart Dink, from Kangal. He had two brothers. His early childhood was spent in the care of his grandfather, whose picture Hrant kept close to his heart. His parents split because of his father's gambling problem, and this led Dink and his brothers to move to Istanbul at the age of seven, where he would spend the rest of his life." "In 1972, Dink changed his legal name to Fırat Dink to disassociate his Maoist political activities from the Armenian community.[11] He later graduated from the Zoology department of Istanbul University.He then studied for a second Bachelor's Degree at the Philosophy Department at the same university, which he did not complete." You see: Very short sentences, seamlessly connected, and with no variety in your forms of expression. Personally, I would recommend a copy-editing by a native English speaker, and a careful reading from your part of User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Done - will ask for copyedit when all else is finished.
An example of repetitive prose: "Church's ownership of the site of camp, demanding that the land be returned to its previous owner. Following a four-year legal process the court ruled that the land should be returned to its previous owner" Done
"The decision was in line with the 1974 decision of The Court of Appeals which declared that all real estate acquired by minorities after 1936 should be either returned back to their previous owners or in case of their bereavment, should be handed over to the National Real-estate Foundation." I would cite here. Done
"During this period, Hrant Dink was taken into custody three times because of his political views.[citation needed] Between 1980 and 1990, Dink operated a bookstore along with his brothers and stayed away from political activism.[citation needed]." You can't go to WP:FAC without having fixed the [citation needed] tags. Done
"Editorial policy" is stubby, and the quotes there are longer than the prose.
"In his public speeches, which were often intensely emotional, he never refrained from using the word genocide when talking about the Armenian Genocide". Oups! Now you speak for a genocide. In the lead, we were told about massacres. Maybe you should be more consistent. And "used the word "genocide" for the "Armenian genocide"" is not the best prose.
I'm not sure that the use of Dink's photo from Screamers is fair use for this article. It is for "Screamers", but I have some reservations for Dink's article.
"He was acquitted the first time, convicted and received a postponed 6 months jail sentence the second time, which he had appealed at the European Court of Human Rights and at the time of his death, the prosecutor's office was getting ready to press charges for a third alleged offense". "Having exhausted internal appeal mechanisms, Dink appealed to the European Court of Human Rights for an overturn of the ruling on January 15th. The appeal is on grounds that Article 301 is against freedom of expression and Dink has been discriminated against because of his Armenian ethnicity." "In September 2006, another case was opened against Dink on charges of 'denigrating Turkishness' under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code" Why are telling us the same things twice in the same section?
"after he reportedly referred to the 1915 massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a "genocide"" Again this mixture of terms about the Armenian genocide ... And a line below: "Dink had a long history of personal threats by Turkish nationalists for his statements on Armenian identity and the Armenian Genocide." And you don't have to wikilink again something you already linked in the lead.
"Dink complained of the Turkish state propaganda ..." Does the Turkish state accepts that it committed propaganda against him. Maybe this could be criticized as POV (I don't believe I said that!).
"According to eye witnesses, Dink was shot by a man of 25–30 years of age, who fired three shots at Dink's head from the back at point blank range before fleeing the scene on foot." This claim definitely needs citing, because it contradicts the police.
"All leave for police in Istanbul had been cancelled." I did not understand that, but maybe this is because a native English speaker.
"Yasin Hayal confessed to telling Samast to kill Dink and supplying the murder weapon[60], while Erhan Tuncel has been charged as a main instigator of the killing, and allegedly directed both Samast and Hayal. The BBP has denied any involvement in the assassination.[57][58][61][62]." Per MoS, inline citations go after the punmark without a gap; not before.
IMO the wole "Reactions" should be turned into proper prose. As I see it now, it is too listy. And FAC reviewers do not like listy sections.
"Awards" could also be turned into proper prose, but this is not a very important issue.
In "See also" you repeated links already linked within the main article. This is wrong. I'd suggest that you get rid of this section, incorporating the links (that are not already linked in the main article and are sufficiently important) within the main prose.
I'd like to improve upon this article and hopefully bring it up to Good Article or Featured Article status at some point. I've added references and links to other Web sites and fleshed out the story since I initially wrote the article. Photos of her are hard to find, but I'm hoping to get one from one of the historical societies. --Bookworm85715836703:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this was a good piece on Hazel. I don't know if FAs can be so short, but I wouldn't see why not. My major suggestion would be to vary your sentence structure in order to make the blizzard narrative more interesting. You have a lot of SVO (SUBJECT-VERB-OBJECT) constructions. I agree that a picture would be a nice addition. If you can't find a picture of Hazel herself, perhaps a picture from one of the ballads? Or even a picture of a blizzard? I was also wondering if this story was connected with Laura Ingalls Wilder's _The Long Winter_ in any way. I have a vague recollection of a similar tale within that book. Awadewit10:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at it. I've added some images, citations and quite a bit to the text. What do you think? I read the Wilder book years ago, but it would have been about 40 years before this blizzard and in South Dakota, not North Dakota. --Bookworm85715836704:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think it's better. There are still some awkwardly worded sentences in the blizzard narrative, particularly those that employ the "and then" construction, but I would definitely say it's an improvement. By the way, the Wilder books were written in the 1930s and 1940s and were far from chronologically or geographically accurate, so I think that connection might still be possible. Wilder and her daughter used incidents from their own lives and from the lives of others to create the narratives. Awadewit06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Hazel spread two blankets, told Emmet and Myrdith to lie down, and then spread a third blanket atop them. She told the younger children to keep moving to stay warm." Maybe the prose is a bit repetitive here.
"They sang all four verses of "America the Beautiful," a song they had sung during opening exercises at the country school that morning. They prayed the Lord's Prayer. Hazel ..." The bolded sentence looks to me a bit choppy as it is there.
"Other blizzard deaths". I don't know if this section is relevant to the article. This is Miner's biography; not an article about the blizzard.
I rewrote the portions of the article you mentioned, removed the "other blizzard deaths" section and gave those victims their own articles, and fixed the citations. An improvement? --Bookworm85715836722:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really looking for feedback on this article, before finishing it up and submitting it for WP:GA. The subject is an interesting figure, but it's difficult to have a narrative for his life because he did many things which weren't related to each other much. (This is perhaps typical of military biographies.) I am looking for comments on whether I should remove information on his early life or what other areas are missing or need expanded. Of course, any other comments on my grammar or structure (or anything else) are also appreciated.(I am still working on the final section, about his time in the USNO, but that will be done shortly.) JRP21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues that it raises, except the questionable use of the word "alledged". Because I am rephrasing a well-cited allegation of the Mau movement against the Naval government, I believe this should be okay. JRP04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin
Quite nice; some general suggestions, in no particular order:
The lead should eventually be lengthened a bit, to at least two full paragraphs; as it stands, it doesn't provide a very useful summary.
The prose structure is quite choppy; there are many one-sentence paragraphs that should be pulled into the surrounding blocks of text. I'd also consider merging everything up to the Virgin Islands material into a single section on his early life and career.
The double footnote numbers are somewhat annoying. Given that you're not really reusing citations very often, I would suggest tolerating a few repeated ones and going for a single combined note at each place in the text (as here, for example) instead.
The succesion box should be at the very bottom, just above the navigational templates.
Nicely done. Some suggestions for further improvement:
You start straight away with "Early career". You have almost nothing for his early life, and family background. I would like to know something more about the "man"; not just about the "officer". This is what (or something like that!) Cla68 has called the "human element"!
"On his return home, the Spanish-American War was heating up and he was transferred back to the USS New York, to see service in Cuba and Puerto Rico, eventually taking part in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba.[6] In January 1900, he was promoted to lieutenant and assigned to the USS Alliance.[7] Over the following year, he was transferred to the USS Dolphin and the USS Buffalo.[8] On board the Buffalo, he returned to the Asiatic Squadron near China and was finally transferred to the USS Brooklyn, the squadron's flagship.[9]" A bit repetitve maybe.
I see you have the tendency to use a lot in your writing the passive voice. Especially in the first paragraph of "U.S. Virgin Islands" I think you overdo it a bit.
"This movement, which entailed a nearly three-month work stoppage in the first year, was started over grievances over the quality of the roads in the territory." Maybe you could rephrase.
"and that the United States Navy prohibited the assembly of Samoan chiefs, who the movement considered the real government of the territory." With which verb is this "that" connected? "Started over"? Can we say "this movement started over ... that ..."? I'm not a native English speaker, so my question is sincere!
"The movement quickly grew to include several prominent officers of Governor Warren Jay Terhune's staff and culminated in the proclamation by Samuel S. Ripley, an American Samoan born of an American father and a Samoan mother and a large property-holder in the territory, that he was the leader of the legitimate successor government to the pre-1899 Samoa." Maybe "who was" is better than "that he was"? Or maybe split the sentence?--Yannismarou21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some more changes. I have difficulty with the passive voice and would appreciate any help you can direct me to on the subject. I believe I have reworded things, especially in the American Samoa section, to be more clear. Does it look better to you?
As for his personal life, I've had some difficulty finding information. The best info for Pollock comes from the histories of the USVI and AS... and sadly his "personal life" remained behind in Washington. I'll look around for more.
The article couls stand in FAC, even as it is now. A more comprehensive approach of his life (e.g. personal life I said) would just be more careful.--Yannismarou11:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Did you pull the commands list from the article or do you have a fantastic list someplace? I don't know how to list American Samoa or the USNO either in this infobox. JRP04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just pulled the list from the article. I wasn't sure from your phrasing whether he was given command of the USS Massachusetts when he was promoted to commander, or whether he served under a captain (which seems likely for a BB) so I did not cite that ship in the list of his commands. Consider adding a reciprocal link to this article to the related ship articles that exist. Many of the ships are lacking lists of commanding officers, so you might need to add it as an inline reference. As for listing the Governor and USNO posts, ask on the main Military History project "talk" page to get feedback as to how or whether to list them beside his shipboard commands. --Petercorless04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they're actual military commands (rather than essentially civilian posts that happen to be filled by an officer), then there's no reason why they can't go in the "Commands" field; otherwise, I'd say the "Other jobs" field is probably the most suitable place. Kirill Lokshin04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the news report I cited about the Massachusetts was ambiguous, if I recall correctly. I had the same scratching of the head that you did and then I wrote it the way I did. Not perfect. I was hoping that if you did have a list, it might help me be sure about that one and completeness in general. I don't claim that the list is complete because the civilian press, especially at the entrance to WWI, didn't have as good of reporting. For example, I couldn't find the date he was promoted to captain because I couldn't find the announcement, but at some point he just starts getting referred to as captain. Imperfect, but I believe I have done the best job I can with the resources I have. :/ JRP04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The stuff around his three main accomplishments are fairly unambiguous: USVI, USS George Washington, and American Samoa. He's in the history books, as it were, and there's plenty of data about those things. The rest is primarily from newspapers. I don't believe there are gaps, but it means that I don't have things like promotion dates and the like and "early years" history is somewhat difficult to come by. My comment was that the military provided less data about ship assignments and stuff to the press during the war, so the data I have for that comes from the reports after the war of what he did. And BTW, I've purchased that book about the USNO to flesh out that section. I'll keep researching. JRP05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As requested by two reviewers, I've researched a bit of material for after his retirement. I wasn't able to find anything on what he did before he went into the Navy, unfortunately. Perhaps nothing was notable. How does this look now? JRP02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he went into the Navy straight out of the Academy, so there wouldn't really be anything to note unless he did something significant while in school (which is very rare). I think it's fine now. Kirill Lokshin02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first venture here with an article I created ten months ago and have done about 99% of the work on since. I have thoroughly researched it, cited everything I possibly could, saw the movie when it came out and then rented the DVD, and this is the result: the most comprehensive source of information on this film anywhere on the Internet.
This is the first step toward taking it to what I hope will be eventual featured status. I have carefully watched other peer reviews here, FAC noms for film both successful and unsuccessful, and GA noms, to see what expectations we have for film articles. I believe this article meets them.
The only issue I would see people having: It's long. At 86K, it is the longest article on Wikipedia about a single film, in fact.
But that is not due to unintended cruftiness (I promised on the talk page to-do to avoid a trivia/miscellanea section and I did). There is just an unusual amount of information out there (again, I think I set a record for most footnotes in a film article (which, I understand, don't count for an article's length, so that might help). Consider that the DVD's commentary track features the writer, producer, director, editor, cinematographer and costume designer all talking about the things you'd want for a Wikipedia film article: their creative decisions and why they made them. Then the deleted scenes have the director and editor talking about why they deleted them. Then there's all sorts of interviews and press coverage, quite a bit of it online, some of which I discovered in the course of doing the research. And, again, a great deal of it relevant and useful.
I have let this mostly sit for a month after I finished most major work on it (and until after the Oscars) while I took a break and worked on other stuff. I am proudest of my work on this of anything I have done on Wikipedia so far. Let me know what you think. Daniel Case03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I am really stunned at the length of the article. After skimming through the article, I have found several minor things I didn't like.
Image:Anhathaway.jpg should be moved to the right side so that the first four bullets of the Characters section could be seen.
I put it there (or, well, someone else did) because I tend to believe very strictly in alternating images from side to side for readability's sake, as it mirrors the sweep of our eyes across the page.
But at the time it was placed, it was a lot closer to the infobox. That doesn't apply now.
Will do. It was placed there before things got so long.
{{wikiquote}} should be moved down to the External links section.
I had that there because it's next to the writing section and to give the readers' eyes a break from what was a long block of text. I'll move it, but I may have to get another image, which will have to be fair use.
Commercial, Critical, and Local marketing subsections of International section should be merged under International section. In other words, get rid of those subsections by putting the info under International section.
Good idea.
2006 in film link should be removed from See also section, since it's already linked in the lead.
Someone else put it there. I thought it had something to do with project guidelines; didn't make sense to me and I'll take it out.
Citation #42 should be fixed.
Yes, someone else moved a reference to the intro without bothering to fix the followups. I hate when that happens. At some point we'll have to make it a blockable offense :-).
I have it where it is so it displays the way it does. I can move it, and will, but if it becomes necessary to move it back to the left again I'll put it back above so it doesn't cut the hed off from the text. I hate when that happens; it looks ugly.
Let me just congratulate on the effort, and for not letting a film you like that could be forgotten in a decade's time not happen. So, effectively you need to make more use of summarising.
Plot: Are you sure you can't squash down things, or connect elements together better so as to feel less than a retread?
Believe it or not, someone else felt it wasn't detailed enough and added more. Are you looking at today's version? This was the way it was before today ... I had worked on getting it down to less than a thousand words before submitting it here. Think we should go back to the shorter version? I do.
Differences from book: Does anyone care if Andrea isn't blonde? I suggest keeping the most important information, such as Lily's character. What do you think are the most startling changes? Looking at the writing section, you could merge some information together as to why there were done, so as to not be so listy.
The hair info could certainly go ... a few weeks ago I decided that some anon's addition of the twins' hair being red in the movie and blonde in the book was waaaaay too trivial to be in the article, particularly since their role is even smaller in the movie. I just followed the examples I saw in other recognized film articles, where that level of detail was given.
Certainly the changes to the ending, Lily and the other main characters are significant are important and should stay.
Would it? If I'm reading a section headed "Synopsis", I want to read a précis of the plot, not a précis constantly interrupted by explanations as to how the book was different. That would work when there's minimal differences between the two; not here.
Besides, many other recognized articles about films based on books have this separate section describing the differences (see V for Vendetta and The Lord of the Rings. Although, now that I think of it, I could probably prosify it, which could shorten things up.
The Production could lose a lot of sectioning. Axe storyboards information: trivial at best, the only notable thing it's used for is mostly big budget and Spielberg's films.
Fine. Frankel says it on the commentary like it was a pretty significant decision (maybe it is in TV, which is where he's done most of his work).
A caveat on losing the sectioning: If during a later review a consensus emerges to restore such sectioning (I did it in response to common complaints on FAC ... I created {{subsections}} for a reason), I will do it. Daniel Case06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All quotes need to be boiled down to a few sentences.
You mean quotes from the movie? It doesn't really have that. You mean other people's quotes? I do think (perhaps it's my journalism background) that having someone's actual quote as a way of explaining something is better than some interpretation you might write.
Locations is a list. Try writing it in as a timeline of when things happened. Look at my work on Jurassic Park (film).
I looked at that, and there is no source that describes what they were doing on what date that I could use that way, the way you used that "making of" book. The locations, as cited, all come from the DVD commentary, where they're sort of just tossed off. Under those circumstances, I can't see how you could do them as anything but a list. Daniel Case00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly well needs to be deleted from Reception opening paragraph.
I do think someone said that its box-office performance was surprising (an early summer chick flick was not supposed to gross almost as well as, say, Superman Returns did. And it had legs, particularly overseas. Perhaps I should cite that?
Indeed.
It's in one of the DVD reviews. I'll put it in.
Nab critisism with Anna Wintour for overall look at the film as a satire.
Remove see also and references in other media, it's original research.
We have that for quite a few other film articles. What if it were cited (Most of it was added by other editors, anyway)? I can't see how someone explicitly referencing the film in an episode of Ugly Betty is original research.
I looked over the style guidelines and, indeed, there are neither section. But let me just warn you that that sort of thing will likely be restored at some point, given the similarities between DWP and UB and the fact that they both succeeded.
Funny Face was a film mentioned in some of the reviews ... I suppose I can integrate it into the article. Ditto with the Glad ad, although I'd like to have a source for it, like whatwasthat.com (but it is the same music). Daniel Case03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images: how often does the satanic shoe need to pop up?
Probably less, but since the article got as long as it did, I felt they were necessary to break up the text and make it easier on readers' eyes. Daniel Case00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed to split off the production section (which accounts for more than a quarter of the article's total length) as a separate article on the talk page as a way of bringing the article into manageable length. If any reviewers have any thoughts on the idea (which might be a first as far as I can tell), bring them up there. Daniel Case04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Konstable
Just a brief comment (might add more later):
You need to check your image details, a lot of the fair use ones are missing fair use rationales
I think you are probably using too many images. They are mostly fair use so you should be limiting their use to only instances where they add to the content of the article significantly. For instance, the shoe image is repeated 4 times, different situations, but quite repetitive and probably not really necessary.
I know I put {{fair use rationale}} on all the screenshots or publicity stills (actually, they're all stills ... I really think those should have a separate licensing template to reflect that they are created and distributed by the film distributor, as opposed to user-created screenshots). While my original justification was that it demonstrated the iconic power of the image, I was aware that some people might see it as overkill and accordingly I'm ready to remove two of them ... probably the soundtrack and the teaser poster (the former is already in that article; the latter has just been kept since it was first used before the film's release).
It will also help to split off the production history section ... I think I'll keep Frankel and Streep there, and maybe Streep and Field since they're easier to justify as not having been part of the movie. Daniel Case13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is something of an underrated film even among fans of the Coen brothers. I think that the article is already off to a good start but I would like to improve it even more. Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you have an easy first step of fair use rationale for images.
I'd move the budget into production--at least the numbers if you think most expensive Cohen film at the time is important then keep that. But, I'd definitely make the intro probably two more fleshed out paragraphs and no hanging sentences like the Wheel of Fortune one. Like how Casablanca (film) does it. grenグレン11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD. One good suggestion from there is to include at least part of a sentence about every important section of the article.
Why so much on the music in the lead? Was it that important in the movie? I recommend moving the music down into a section of its own. Was there a soundtrack released?
first section, wikilink New Years Eve, Hula hoop, frisbee.
Norville is chased down the street by an angry mob to the Hudsucker building - what made the mob angry?
Moses stops the clock and time freezes - huh? Need to explain Moses's mystical powers a bit more. If he has divine powers, why does he have to fight Aloysius - or is Aloysius also more than human? Heck, what are M and A's motivations?
goes on to "rule with wisdom" - rule what, the company? why the quote marks?
action."[1]One - need a space after the ref
Production - wikilink skyscraper, since it's so important
While trying to sell their feature film debut Blood Simple, - be more specific, give a date
the scale after Citizen Kane (1941).- in what sense is the scale based on a famous movie?
it was a box office flop, grossing less than $3,000,000 in the US. - this needs to be moved after the test shootings text, don't you think? In fact, I'd move it all the way to Reaction.
More reaction - this only describes immediate reaction, what about reaction over the last 15 years? Any more recent films based on it, any more recent reviews, retrospectives, references?
References - the Retrieved on dates are red links, try again, maybe need leading 0s? Also some refs have double double quotes, as in ""A Rock on the Beach,"
External links - describe the links more. Coenesque - isn't there a more specific subpage for this film?
I think this article is well on its way to achieving a GA status and would like some help and/or comments speed up the process on this important film. Many thanks! Count Ringworm15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the intro expanded per WP:LEAD, candidate paragraphs would be about the box office and about the critical/historical controversy and reception, both of which are reasons this film is notable. Kaisershatner14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could add a better distribution of sources, it looks like you use the same few for the inline citations. You should use some online resources, I'm sure you can find some more information there to include within the article. --Nehrams202007:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the reaction section is going to have to be worked on, I would eliminate all validity discussions related to the film's theories and redirect them to the relevant articles here on Wikipedia. Otherwise you're never going to get it to GA status. I'd just keep it to the critical reactions and not get too deeply into whether the theories are correct or incorrect, that's probably the only you'll be able to keep that section managebale. Quadzilla9900:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Films WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time." Sorry, but, you might want to get a group of people together to write an article so style experts (and people who nose around like myself) can try to critique it. It's hard to review nothing. You should look at the film featured articles in WP:FA#Media and that might give you an idea of what a film needs to become featured. grenグレン11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article is based on a film that won't be released until 2008. It is highly unlikely that a film will be rated as a GA until the film is released as details can considerably change, the film may be cancelled, actor/director could change, etc. It is best to wait after the film is released so that all appropriate information can be added of its reception, box office, etc. to help improve the article. Consider looking to another article right now that has already been released that you can work on bringing to GA and wait until this one is released before trying to bring it to GA. --Nehrams202022:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If possible, I'd like a little more info on the subjects of the film itself, and some background on different views vs. gay men and gay women. One thing that struck me when I saw it was that none of the women showed their faces or let themselves be identified. I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Kolindigo19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Dev, you've done a good job on this article. Congrats and keep it up! :-)
It should summarize the entire article. If the rest of the article was removed, it should be able to stand on its own as an article.
It needs its sources cited like the rest of the article.
[the film] did reasonably at the box office, using dollar amounts would be better here. Let the reader decide how good or bad it did. It did reasonably at the box office compared to what? Did it do reasonably well for a gay movie? For a Jewish movie?
The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they went about their lives and interviewed both rabbis and psychotherapists about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality. Because of these attitudes, while DuBowski met hundreds of homosexual Jews over six years, only a handful agreed to be filmed. What was their attitudes? Where they embarrassed about their beliefs? Is that what DuBowski theorized the reason they did not want to be interviewed?
A section on homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism would be helpful for the reader to understand the movie's subject matter.
I would like to see more criticism and praise for the movie.
Has the movie actually made an impact on the Jewish and gay communities?
There is also a mini-documentary about reactions to the film around the world and what happened to the people who were featured in the documentary. Maybe we could talk briefly about this documentary as well? -- Ash Lux(talk | contribs)16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two more things:
Turn "Awards" section into a list instead of a table (I like how Brokeback_Mountain#Awards does it).
The awards section in brokeback mountain looks horribly untidy. I prefer the other one. Anyway, I checked out the stuff you mentioned in the lead, and haven't done anything where the information you asked for may be found in the body of the article, but added everything else. A section on background has been added for homosexuality and Judaism. I will add more criticism as I find it as you have suggested, but hasn't the impact on the jewish and gay communities been described in the Reception section? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev, you've done a great job with this article -- I'm going to have to add it to my Netflix queue now :) The background section was a very good touch, nice job. You're right on the awards section. The awards section just looked funny because my screen because my screen is quite large and it took up 30% or so of the width. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "[the lead] should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I understand this to mean we should add sources in the lead-in regardless if it is sourced in the other sections. It makes sense to me anyhow, the reader's shouldn't have to skim the article to find the appropriate citation. I would still like to know what "the film did reasonably well at the box office" means. Are we talking millions here? Putting something like "the film did reasonably well at the box office grossing n dollars" would do just fine. The article needs someone to go through who is pretty good at fixing up grammar, etc. I'm not very good at it, but I'll go over it tomorrow with that in mind. Again, nice work! -- Ash Lux(talk | contribs)05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations to the lead, and the amount grossed. And if you want to see Trembling, you definitely want to see Latter Days. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the lead a bit of a rewrite, attempting to summarize the article a little better and more fully. No doubt I've made some mistakes, so feel free to fix things up or tell me. -- Ash Lux(talk | contribs)23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you liked it, you didn't change much *cheers* :-) The style section bothers me, it is a bit short. Would it make sense to make it a subsection to Production or Synopsis sections? Or just expand it? In any case, I think we could give WP:GA another shot first. I believe the concerns from the first GA have been resolved. -- Ash Lux(talk | contribs)01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked WJB to look at it again. Tbh, I usually bypass GA. If you've put in enough work to make it GA, you may as well put in that little bit more to make it FA. The style section was put in because the previous GA nom complained that it didn;t fit anywhere else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Dev! Just a few quibbles before this goes to FAC:
There are a handful of one sentence paragraphs. This will come up in FAC, so either merge the sentences with a surrounding paragraph or expand them.
The See Also section is pointless as everything ,except for Keep Not Silent, is already linked within the article. I think Keep Not can be worked in somewhere in the article.
Check to make sure that links are only linked once within the article. Stephen Greenberg is linked thrice. Also, check each link and make sure they link to the proper article and not disambig pages.
Stephen Greenberg is described as "the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi" twice.
There is a lack of images...other than the DVD cover, there isn't anything else. The image of DuBowski has a fair-use rationale for use in this article, yet it is not there. It should be included. Perhaps find a screenshot from one of the interviews in profile as well? Maybe an image of Greenberg?
I had images of both but neither WJB nor Angr would let me use them, apparently it's not fair use to just show living people. The links and gay rabbiness have been dealt with. The see also section is always something I personally like to see, even when the links are above, so I want to leave that there. And if you think it's okay to have a fair shot at FA, I'll go do it then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a GA at most.
Finetooth comments: This article has a couple of big problems and some smaller ones. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
I agree with whoever added the "too long" tag above the plot synopsis. I wonder also about the source of the synopsis. If this is your personal description of the plot, it might be regarded as personal research. It's doubtful that a professional reviewer would describe the plot in this much detail. Please see WP:NOR.
You'll have a hard time justifying the use of three fair-use images in this article. I see that one is flagged for deletion, and I doubt that more than one will survive scrutiny. Mr suggestion would be to use only the one in the infobox.
The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES for the recent changes to the guidelines.
I'd recommend deleting the word "unexpectedly" from the phrase, "before disappearing unexpectedly from the box-office charts". If you leave it in, it needs a source.
In the "Release and reception" section, it's not clear what the phrase "wide break" means. Does that mean the movie's rise or its fall in the charts?
The link to the Vincent Canby review is dead. You might substitute this one in the citation.
The Maltin citation includes an access date but no url. Should it have an url? If you are citing a book in print, the print version would have no access date.
Hello, this is Matticus78, and I wrote most of the article as it stands at present. I came across it at the end of November last year while on new page patrol, and it wasn't in the best of condition[1] (short, unreferenced and not very accurate). Animation history is an interest of mine, so I made it a project to rewrite the page (merging some content from the already existing article Sullivan Bluth Productions[2]). Frankly, I was surprised that Wikipedia didn't already have a good article on the studio, considering its importance. Anyway, I did a lot of research to get the article up to scratch, and basically rewrote the whole thing piece by piece over the course of a couple of months. I'd love to see this article given that bit of spit-and-polish that it needs to get it up to GA or even FA standards. The weak points I can currently see is the redlink for Morris Sullivanand (somewhat less important) Aurora Productions, both important entities in the studio's history, but I haven't been able to come up with much useful information on him. Also, the lack of pictures representing the studio's later productions is a bit of a problem, but it's hard to find any Sullivan Bluth films on the shelves any more, much less their not-so-successful ones. Anyway, I'll do my bit to pitch in during this peer review and help address concerns and suggested improvements. ~MatticusTC23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I created a stub article for Aurora Productions to deal with that redlink. Still can't find any good, solid information on Morris Sullivan outside his involvement with Bluth, and his being a mergers and acquisition broker (albeit semi-retired by the time he met Bluth). ~MatticusTC00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, you may be using too many fair use images (Wikipedia:Fair use):
The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
The material must contribute significantly to the article
Some of them can stay, but others have to go if you are looking for an WP:FA.
I am confused about the fair use policy regarding images. I will try to merge the facts from the trivia section into the main article. Real9618:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated the trivia facts into the article. The trivia fact about Eddie Murphy's films was incorporated into his article. I am confused about the copyrighted work, because the licensing was of the film's screenshot. Real9619:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia needs to be merged with appropriate areas of the article to help with context. It can't just lie around as a dead stump of information. There isn't any way you could clean the plot? Wiki-newbie17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Allusions to factual events" is listy and may be interpreted by some as being a trivia section. If you could convert it from being listy to an actual section, cohesive and tied throughout with an intro, middle and end, then this may help. LuciferMorgan03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
"Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
"Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.
I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.
My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm submitting this article for peer review now as I think it's nearly ready for FAC nomination. This article is on the rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. I'd really like any comments that could help fix any issues that may arise during an FAC nomination. Please be specific, I'm especially interested in comments regarding criteria 1a, prose especially. - Shuddatalk03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey, in respect to criteria 1a "the pose is compelling, even brilliant" I think this passes it well, the informal tone I noticed during the GA review seems to have been disolved aswell. My one thought is in relation to the section on the team colors and uniform, it seems pretty short, see if you can incorporate it into another section if at all possible †he Bread300006:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of the second and third paragraphs in the lead-in. They are too long to be a summary of the club's history. They should be condensed into one short paragraph. The prose in the club history section needs some work.GordyB18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well ,as per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article,". So I've included information on history, records, and notable players, because these things are all covered in detail in the article. Also "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Looking at it though, I think there may be too much detail, but something on history, records, and notable players should definitely be there. Also, could I have some more detail on what prose, specifically, needs work. It's not as helpful just to say it needs it. Thanks. - Shuddatalk22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing too many sentences begin either 'The Crusaders' or 'The Blues'. Some of the sentences need to be re-written so that they have a different start.GordyB14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently WP:LGBT's monthly collaboration. We have a dream that eventually every collaboration will result in an FA. Tips as to how to get there in this particular case would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.
"Origins" can probably be expanded.
This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").
"Many people whom this article would define as transgender reject the term altogether"
The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".
The article seems to get off topic when discussing transsexualism, cross dressing, drag, transvestic fetishism, without tying them back to transgender.
The section "Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures" shouldn't be a bulleted list. Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.
In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about? -- Ash Lux(talk | contribs)06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. :-) My take on the article:
Get refs for the citation needed tags (obviously).
Origins section looks okay. Explains pretty good the difference with transsexual. Perhaps last paragraph ('More recently...') could be expanded/cleared up a bit?
Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point. Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).
The transsexual section is a bit long, isn't it? I mean, there's a link to the main article. And it hasn't got a single ref.
I agree with Ashlux about the article seeming to go off-topic when discussing cross-dresser, drag, genderqueer...
Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.
Kudos for the Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures section. Needs work (and refs), but it's a very good idea.
Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).
Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.
Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.
N I'm not sure this is doable. There is an enormous number of transgender expressions throughout the world and human history. The Two-Spirit article tried to list them all and came up with a list that was way longer than the original article: so much so, in fact, they had to transwiki it here. The proposed article "History of transgender" would be about as big as, um, this article. Editwikipediausername02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").
N I'm not sure this can be fixed. I've dealt with this as best I can by moving bits to new sections and copyediting, but further reduction would be difficult without removing references to TS/CD/TV/AD/GQ/CG/DK/DQ/TVF/IS's altogether, which would gut the article. Editwikipediausername02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point.
The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".
Done...well, done-ish. The TG/TS differentiation is there, but towards the bottom as it turned out.
In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about?
Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.
I saved a stub from deletion last month, and I've - with some help - got it to GA status. Since then, I have expanded and referenced it further, even finding a book mention. I'd like to see if I can spruce it up a little more, and would like additional input. I'm not sure if there's enough information available on defunct feminist indie record labels to get it to FA, but that's the dream. Even if not, I would like it to be as good as it can be, so thoughts, suggestions and comment are welcome. Thanks. Proto►13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add the corresponding infobox of recording labels ({{infobox record label}}) at the top of the article.
Reviews should be split out of the lead and the "Background" section to a new "Reception" section.
Split information about the band becoming defunct from the "Background" section to a new section with additional information from here.
References 5 and 25 needs to go right after the text, without an external space. References 14, 15, 16, 17, 13 need to go after the punctuation mark.
...now defunct > ...which became defunct in 2004.
Be more specific in the "Artists formerly on Mr. Lady" section references, rather than providing the band's website itself. Also, I suggest moving the section to Artists formerly on Mr. Lady and adding that as a "main" article for the "Artists and releases" section in order to avoid the article becoming too listy.
The two formed Mr. Lady to make women's music and videos accessible and affordable - Duplication of the previous sentence.
Copyediting related:
In March, 2001 - Remove comma.
...by women.". - Remove the second period.
...a record company With - Remove capitalization.
...records (along with - Remove bracket.
Kaia Wilson released a statment confirming this in June 1999, stating - Replace "stating" with a colon. "...statment" > "...statement".
Formally backing the festival's trans-exclusion policy led to protests and boycotts aimed towards Mr. Lady acts, and Wilson and The Butchies in particular, from groups such as Camp Trans, who disagreed with Mr. Lady's stance and felt that the group and the label exploited transgendered images - Split this to two sentences starting with "Wilson and The Butchies". "...who" > "...have". "...the label" > "...label".
I have further copyediting suggestions, but I strongly advice requesting a different editor with a strategic distance to pass through the article to check for mistakes (I'd be happy to do so if you would like me to). Thanks. Michaelas10(Talk)16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The automated suggestions aren't much help (it wants to fix contractions from inside quotes, and that's about it). The copyedits are done, dates are fixed, Quails website removed, It would be great if you could pass over it, Michael, thanks - a couplde of the chnages you suggested I know I've missed. The citation templates are a nightmare to put in, so I have not used them (use is neither reccomended for or against on Wikipedia:Citation templates). Artists formerly on Mr. Lady would not be a suitable article for Wikipedia. I will expand this out later with a little text on each band, to make it a paragraph rather than a list. Proto►19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten pretty good at the {{cite}} templates. While they're neither recommended nor discouraged, they do ensure the cites are done in the proper way. I'm not saying the ones on here are improper, btw! :) But if you'd like, I can do that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally thought of creating this article just to alleviate the length of Chadian-Libyan conflict; but then I started working at it, trying to make it a good article. This has made me think of the possibility of attempting to make it the first GA in Chad-related topics. All criticisms will be immensely appreciated; in particular, I'm concerned with the prose, as its not my first language, and if there are any repetitions in the exposition. Also, I'm not certain about the lead.--Aldux21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin
Not bad at all. Some things that need work, though:
I was noticing the same things as Kirill, and have begun acting upon them. Seeing as there is a lack of other images, I've added the Chadian and Libyan flags.
There are also some things which are probably just differences in sentence structure between Italian and English, mainly the placement of phrases - if you check my recent changes, you'll see I've rearranged some sentences.
Seeing as I was the one who suggested you split it off in the first place, I guess I'm to blame for this: there are places where not enough context is provided, or too much familiarity is assumed. I've wikilinked several things already and mentioned who Gaddafi was to try to rectify this. Picaroon22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Picaroon. I'm not very coonvinced about the flags; there not specific enough, a map, even general, would be probably better. And yes, I keep forgetting that Chad - ahem (euphemism coming) - is not one of the best known countries in the world. I'll try to add some context.--Aldux23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, I changed its spelling from "Jamahiriyyah Guard" because that's a less widely used variant of Jamahiriya (Arabic for "mass-state," IIRC). I guess we should leave it to Aldux, seeing as he has access to the book which mentioned it. Picaroon23:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Jamahiriya Guard is mentioned by Metz and Pollack as a sort of pretorian guard, recruited only amongst Gaddafi's tribal clan. I'll try to work on it, maybe it's called often in the west "Repubblican Guard" or "Presidential Guard" (it may have been disbanded; my info regards the 1980s).--Aldux23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the infobox, I can add some other info not contained yet in the article, and will expand Djamous. As for the Libyan or Chadian name of the conflict, I strongly doubt an estabilished name, as Libya has just removed any memory of this war, while Chad is too small to have developed a specific pov on the question.--Aldux23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I guess its just down to which ones to pick. I'll look around for more and post them here then we can make a choice of the most appropriate. You're right they're non-reproducible, it would be great to find some PD-US-gov, but I think it highly unlikely :( - Francis Tyers·23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd focus on the photographs that actually show combat action; they're likely to be a bit more meaningful that the generic French-plane-flying ones. Kirill Lokshin23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added one to the infobox. As fair as fair use (*cough* *spit*) goes, I think we have a fair claim to this one. It would be nice to remove the black border, but I'm not sure if that counts as a derivative work. If anyone wants to find a photo for the Libyan side that would be good. - Francis Tyers·09:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BanyanTree
Specific points
What is the CDR? Also, please add that article to the disambiguation page CDR.
"France answered with a second airstrike" - what was the first airstrike? needs context
"affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - perception of who? international or domestic observers?
General points
There is a definite need for more background over why this war is happening and what happened in the previous phases. One tightly written paragraph may be enough.
I've copyedited a bit and added the garish map mentioned by Picaroon above. There are a couple of editors who have created battle maps in the past whom may be willing to create custom maps if you approach them and point out sources.
Were there any economic or humanitarian effects, e.g. refugees and IDPs?
Otherwise, I think it is quite good. I dislike massive articles greatly and this gives a reasonable amount of detail (though I would like more context and operational-level detail) in a reasonable length. - BanyanTree01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank everybody for the fantastic work done; I would never have expected the reviews to arrive so fast, and with so many edits to the article thanks! :-) It's a bit late here, so I'll only briefly awnser.
Regarding the specific points raised by BT,
Picaroon is correct regarding the CDR; I'll create an article on the miltia commanded by Ahmat Acyl.
Oops, the first one is the 1986 Opération coup de poing. As this article was originally just a section of a bigger article, what before was obvious is not anymore so.
"affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - shall change to "affected the international perception of Libya as a significant regional military power"
As for the maps, this French website has some that would be very interesting If I could obtain them [[3]]. On wikipedia there's this meeting between Habré and Miterrand during the Toyota War [4], and maybe this map of Chad could be useful [5], as many of the towns mentioned on the article are there (Aouzou, Faya-Largeau, Fada, the capital, the Libyan base of Maaten as-Sara)
Regarding humanitarian effects, I know very little, mainly through a few hints given by Nolutshungu. Remember that the war to retake northern Chad took only 3 months, and that northern Chad is all desert (i.e., very few inhabitants).
Fair enough, though a sentence describing the environment and terrain (and lack of inhabitants) would be nice for the intro. - BanyanTree00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By operational level detail, I think he's referring to details of specific skirmishes/battles, ie formations, human losses, etc... I suspect that there won't be much information on these, because it seems unlikely to have written down in detail. Picaroon23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "a brief summary of the war", you mean a summary of the events already present in the article in the lead? As for the links to the battles, sure.--Aldux22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article I wrote early on in my life here on Wikipedia and is a fairly full as novel articles go here so I thought I would put it forward as the first "Novels WikiProject" Peer review. Have a look at it guys and see what you think. Also you can start to enter your favourite articles for further peer reviews. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yllosubmarine
I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but seeing as how this is a new project, and I'm quite giddy with the idea of it, I thought I'd have a go. Aside from the stub sections, which definitely need more meat on them, I'm confused by the "Film, TV or theatrical adaptations" section. It's rather ambiguous, and it would be nice to have something along the lines of what Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World has; a slightly indepth explanation of the differences between Master and Far Side, and how both fit into the other books. Also, this may seem slightly picky, but I've noticed that Lord Keith is a character in the book, but I don't see a note as to the fact that the guy actually existed. I like little tidbits like that in articles, and as I haven't read the books, I'm wondering if there are other characters based off of fact? Perhaps that can fit into "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science." I'm also curious about the red-linked HMS Sophie and the significance between that. Hope this helps! María: (habla ~ cosas) 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents
First of all, for a novel article this is quite good, certainly considering it was one of your first attempts. It could use some work though. Here are my thoughts:
Fair use images should have a rationale why fair use is allowed on the pages they are used. I have added a rationale, take a look at it. (Unfortunately, it seems that fair use pictures will not be allowed anymore).
The plot summary is fine as it is, unless this is not the end of the novel. Larger plot summaries tend to discourage reading the article. I recommend removing the stub notice.
The characters section should be reworked as prose; it should not be a list. See WP:EMBED for more details on this MoS guideline. It should state what role the character plays, what development he goes through, etc.
Same goes for ships. Their role and fate should be explained.
The list of reviews should go. Every respectable newspaper has a book review section; this book is probably reviewed thousands of times all over the world. And just a quote for literary significance is not enough. This should also be rewritten as prose, possibly incorporating the quote into the text.
I think release details should be an article itself; this section can then be transformed into a (short) paragraph about the number of releases, the number of languages it is translated into and so on.
The references could be used for adding in-line references.
Hello! Gunston Hall is a piece of Georgian architecture and was owned by George Mason, a United States Founding Father. I welcome all suggestions for improvement, but I am unsure of the reliability of a few of the references, so it would be great to get another opinion on that. Thanks! ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is generally structurally sound and gives a good overview of the subject. Some comments:
Regarding references: there is something of an overeliance on the offical website, which will almost certainly express a sympathetic point of view. As you've stated the source explicitly in the most contentious cases this isn't so much of a problem, but more diversity in the references would be helpful. The one place where its use is a concern is for the statement no other rooms with chinoiserie woodwork are known to have existed in colonial America. I imagine you've found more or less all the online information about Gunston Hall, but if possible borrowing some of the print sources listed in the official site's bibliography from the library would be of use. I wouldn't use the FXVA reference as it is a tourist brochure, and the location of the mansion is sufficiently straghtforward not to require a reference anyway. The US Navy reference is a dead link at the moment.
Things without references which could do with one:
The various carvings in the mansion were most likely the joint work of both William Buckland and William Bernard Sears
Of the bedchambers, the four corner rooms were considered the nicest. Also try to avoid using the word nicest.
Provide metric conversions of distances in parentheses, and use words instead of figures for numbers of twenty or less.
The passive voice (could be, would have) is used a couple of times when the active voice would be more appropriate. e.g. change The attic could be accessed through one of the inner bedrooms to The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms
Again, thank you for the help! *Hopefully*, I have fixed all of the problems above, except for the lack of source variety / offline sources, which will take time. Would you be willing to take another look at it? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. One thing I neglected to mention before is that the section about the visitors centre and shop is a little brochure-like. The information about admission prices should be removed. It should state what is there rather than suggesting what visitors can do. Oldelpaso19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started to copy edit this, but the ref system used makes it hard to do so (that is my problem) but to me the text seems very verbose, with ambiguities and too many " most likely"s and "according to"s (8 in fact) - if something is known as fact say so, if it not known state it as an accreditation or assertion. I don't see how the house can be mostly the design of Buckland if the exterior walls were finished when he first arrived on the scene. "According to Luke Beckerdite" - who is Luke Beckerdite? The text need to be sharpened and refined. It is an interesting page on a fascinating subject but is does need to be pulled together and made less repetitious Giano23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and edits! I have excised all uses of the phrase "according to" in favour of other forms of attribution. The most likelies and probablies often occur when the sources themselves are uncertain, because they are making guesses based on archaeological evidence. There is probably a better way to handle that, but I will have to look at it rather than just taking them out. Luke Beckerdite was an author of a chapter of an online book, which is cited. Anyway, I will do my best to more fully address your concerns when I have time. Again, thanks! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not known for sure then something is an accreditation or an assertion. If someone is an author than say so in the the text. eg The author Fred Smith has asserted that..., or claimed that... on the basis of etc etc etc. Don't just suddenly drop in unexplained a strange name, even if he is listed in the refs. It is a good page on the whole - I'm sure it will get there. Giano07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great beginning to this article, but there are some things that need work, in my humble opinion:
Besides a few sentences and the section on construction, the article doesn't really outline the history of the house and the grounds. Take a look at Giano's marvelous article on West Wycombe Park. There is just as much information on the family who occupied the house as there is on the architecture. Additionally, you might consider merging the section on the other Mason plantations into this history. Along those same lines, I would redirect the other plantations to this article unless the articles can be expanded and the plantations are notable enough to warrent separate mention.
A great deal of time is spent on the interior, with little on the exterior. I would create a section on the exterior and combine the interior sections (including basement). In addition, the Gardens and Outbuildings sections could be combined as well.
The lone sentence on the construction of the house should be placed in the first paragraph of the introduction.
There are portraits of both Mason and Buckland in their respective articles, these might be included as well.
Just glanced at some of the above. I would note that a sentence using "was" is also passive voice.
The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms
That's passive. The subject has to act on the verb for it not to be....
That sentence is hard to construct without passive. _______ accessed the attic through the inner bedrooms. That is how the sentence could be constructed non-passively. Not sure what the missing word would be though.
What an interesting article, well written, nice images, well referenced - it's a good FA candidate I'd have thought. A few comments:-
Presumably this building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places - this should get a mention and the Category:National Register of Historic Places should be included, but please - no infobox!
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 km, use 8 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8 km.[?]
In the last paragraph Other Mason plantations - 'George Mason' recurs too much in the text - maybe replace with 'his' and 'he' where possible. (I know there's several G Masons but it gets a bit repetitive)
I wonder whether its worthwhile combining the rather short 'outbuildings' section with the 'garden section' into a 'Gardens and outbuildings' section?
Unlike other 18th century houses of Gunston Hall's stature, the layout of the second floor is unlike the layout of the floor below - 2 'unlike's and 2 'layout of's - maybe replace the second clause with 'the layout of the second floor is entirely dissimilar to the floor below'
It's difficult to imagine the 'rococo, chinoiserie, and Gothic' interiors - these certainly aren't evidenced by the rather sedate image of the corridor - are there no images of these rooms we might be able to include?
'Although chinoiserie was popular in Britain, the Gunston Hall museum website says Gunston was the only house with this decoration in colonial America.[7]' - No need to include a mention of the website in the text and provide a citation - one or the other.
'In November, when Buckland arrived, the exterior walls of Gunston Hall were probably complete' - if it's 'probably' we need to cite who asserts it was probably complete - or is this our own assertion?
There's a few mention of 'private, non-public rooms' - surely a private room is, by definition, non-public? redundancy. It's probably better to include a short paragraph explaining how the house would be used at the time, for entertaining etc. and how the house was split between those functions and those for the family's habitation.
I'm personally quite interested in Servant's quarters and the way they are integrated into the public/private plan of such houses - you mention the outbuildings providing accomodation for slaves - but where was the kitchen in relation to the dining room - how was the food transported there - where was the laundry?
Okay, I made some changes, but some of your suggestions will take more time. I should be able to add more pictures when I add more text. I have found three new potential sources since the peer review started, which are currently listed in Gunston Hall#Further_reading. HABS provides a lot of pictures, so finding a picture that shows architectural detail won't be hard. However, all the indoor photos are greyscale.
HABS also provides architectural drawings, however they do not scale well to small sizes. They should be public domain, so perhaps you could make them readable at sizes suitable for inclusion in the article? That would be most appreciated. See first floor, second floor, basement, house and garden, and grounds. Of course, I doubt there is need for five plans, but perhaps you can decide which are most important. Note that you will probable have to download the TIFFs in order to be able to read the text.
Unfortunately, archaeologists can't seem to find the slave quarters. One of the new potential sources seems to provide a lot of information about the activities that occurred at Gunston Hall Plantation, although it is often unclear if it is talking about GHP specifically, or plantations of that time period in general. I won't be able to use it until I go to the library again. It provides information about the crops grown, goods produced, why the plantation is situated near the Potomac, etc. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I overhauled this article a few days ago and I just wanna know what more should I do to attain it GA or even better FA status. PhilipDM21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was only rated as Start-Class on the quality scale, despite being such an important topic, and was previously almost unsourced and contained large chunks of OR. In the last couple of days I've rewritten it and added sources, but it's still a little confusing, and contains a lot of material that's duplicated from Political power and the tripartite classification of authority. I think I've improved this article considerably, but it needs a bit more work to get up to GA/FA standard. WaltonVivat Regina!17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AnonEMouse
(and many non-human) - that animals have what we call politics is a pretty strong statement. Expand, and cite, or remove.
Political science, ... - unbold.
Political Philosophy, Public Administration - uncapitalize
Aristotle asserts in Politics - I know what you mean, but considering the title of this article, specify that it's a book
Thomas Hobbes ... proposed - contrast with Aristotle, above; pick a tense for statements made in books, and be consistent
left-right - cite, and specify that this is fairly recent. Hobbes, Aristotle, etc., didn't mention such a divide. What divides, if any, they mention? Monarchist/populist maybe?
Certain politicians have tried to transcend - frankly, most politicians try to transcend, saying they are "a uniter not a divider", all that. Unless you have a really good set of sources, I'd leave that out, and certainly not mention specific politicians in an article on all politics, reads biased. Just saying Morin is more notable than De Gaulle is going to get you a lot of opposition, for no good gain.
Authoritarian-Libertarian - need more than one sentence for a subsection
Machiavelli's The Prince is pretty important, no? Just a suggestion
Some within ... various ways - be specific in each case; who says, and which ways, per WP:WEASEL. End with a period. It is also often considered a good idea to have more than one sentence in a subsection. :-)...
and sociological perspectives. - is this the same as Pragmatic, per that subsection? Specify.
The page begins with "Approaches to the study of politics," but Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, etc. were not just studying politics, they were coming up with political theories. I would suggest that the page begin with some short "Definitions" (such as "politics," "republic," "democracy," etc.) so that the reader has some basic terms to work with and then move on to "Political theories" that would encompass Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. in subsections. The "Related concepts" should be discussed in terms of the political philosophers and philosophies when relevant and defined when necessary. This is what needs the most work right now, as I see it.
"Political power" should come after the "Political philosophy" section (the section on "Political spectrums" should come later). Might Michel Foucault be a good representative of the postmodern view of power (Discipline and Punish)?
The bulletted lists should be changed into prose, for example, in the "authority" section.
The "other considerations" section does not seem necessary at this time.
Of course, when you are tired of writing, you can add pictures. :)
And, of course, you already have all of my comments about the sources.
By the way, just to make everything more difficult, I have feeling Eastern philosophers also discuss politics. You might add a tag to the article saying that it does not represent a worldwide view (it is no reflection on yourself - no one can know everything). That might alert someone who does something to add to it. Awadewit12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a high-quality article generally. I'd say the quality of written English was fine, so don't worry too much about copy-editing (although there are a couple of typos and broken wikilinks). The only problem with the article is that there are too few sources; quite a few quotes and statements of fact are given in the article without sources. However, as this isn't a controversial topic, that shouldn't be a problem. WaltonVivat Regina!17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second request for Peer Review. After the previous one said the article had no problems and was ready for FA, the FAC failed miserably. Now that most of the problems issued there have been resolved, I would like to know if there are any problems with the article that would prevent this from reaching FA status. --wL<speak·check>11:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
I am requesting peer review because a debate has erupted over certain comments in the criticism section of this article. In order to eliminate bias, I would like it peer reviewed (John19692002200122:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Anything to upgrade the Page from its apparent present B-Class, to an A-Class. Seems rather well researched with references for nearly everything. I suppose layout could be improved. Any suggestions would be warmly welcomed.G.AC18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also appreciate greatly help in promoting the improvement of the page and, hopefully, eventually making this a featured article. G.AC18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad article at all, extremely thorough (if anything too thorough!) The phrasing is a bit clumsy in spots. There are also a lot of inline quotations here; while I don't have specific suggestions about that, note that I got a lot of heat for too many quotations from the subject at my FAC review, though I only had 6 or so total. Consider reducing.
I'm not so sure the image is a publicity photo from a press kit, it seems to be sourced to a magazine's site. Can you contact jeffbuckley.com and ask if they will release a few images under Creative Commons or GFDL? See WP:COPYREQ.
About his father Buckley said, "I never knew him." "I met him once, when I was 8."[4] Tim Buckley died two months later of a drug overdose in 1975.[5] - clumsy, rephrase, possibly move down a paragraph after being raised by stepfather. Explain why father lived apart. Moved and elaboratedSillyfolkboy (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I idolize Nusrat,"[29] Buckley would later say. - injection of the present tense mixed with past makes this clumsy. restated as fact. Dissolve23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a development deal with Gods and Monsters - in other words G&M was offered the deal, not Buckley? Then say so. Now stated as "a member of G&M"Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buckley was an impassioned fan of Pakistani Sufi musician Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, and during his cafe days Buckley had often covered his songs. He interviewed Khan for Interview magazine and wrote liner notes for Khan's The Supreme Collection compilation. - why is this under Concert tours? I'd move it up with the earlier mention. Can you find (and reference) the interview? Now in early career section with link to Interview article Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The autopsy confirmed that Buckley had taken no illegal drugs before his swim - why was there suspicion of this? Write something about him being or not being a drug user, in an earlier section. Most musicians are reported to be, but we can't just take it as assumed. Ruling out cause of death and clarifying situation previously added Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was so remarkable about his songs? Why did he succeed? Interesting lyrics, large vocal range, did he play the guitar very well, what? What were their distinctive characteristics - how can you tell his works from those of the next fifteen musicians?
Many good points here. Thanks. I'm guessing that using alot of quotations in considered un-encyclopaedic? is there a link to any guidelines, style guide or discussions on the use of quotations? that would help. Dissolve19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my FAC review that I refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson, and continued in Talk:Jenna Jameson. The article had about 6 and got jumped on, it now has even fewer and is still getting heat: "This article implicitly endorses its subject's opinions as fact. This is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia article - it's magazine style writing...." and so forth. They didn't/don't cite specific policies either. I can't say I agree with all these criticisms, and the article did make it to FA despite them, but I thought you should at least be aware of the issues. Mine was also an inherently more controversial subject, so you may get less heat. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently contributed to this article with a major expansion on its encyclopedical and visual contents. Some images, like this and this, I have even created myself from pre-existing ones on Commons. I would appreciate comments and suggestions on how to further improve the whole article and make it a reliable candidate for featured status. Parutakupiutalk || contribs17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Comprehensive, yet a good length. Nice to have images of all the different versions of the flag (though I must admit I didn't go through and check the licensing). I see from your user page that English is not your first language; I've gone through and tided up the English, though I don't claim it is now perfect :) There are still some things which need rephrasing - epopee and comotioned are not in common English usage; the translation of the remarks by the commission about the symbolism of the colours also reads somewhat oddly to the English ear. There were a few [external links] in the text which I converted to footnotes. I removed the comment about the current flag not being heraldically correct; the rule of tincture only applies when you have a charge of one colour on top of another colour; divisions of the field are considered to be beside each other. In general dates which only consist of a year should not be linked, so I have removed most such links. There are a number of statements and/or paragraphs which don't have any cited sources, this should be addressed. --Dr pda01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you. I tried to mention all possible and important aspects of the subject without extending the article beyond the necessary (it's 42kb, as of now), as required to become a perfect article. The majority of the photos and flag images already existed and are under a usable licenses (PD or that CC-thing; no fair-use), I only created two more from one of them (the construction sheet and military flag). Indeed, English is my 2nd language and I think I'm a good writer of it but, as I'm not native speaker, there are always many grammar and syntax errors that English-speaking reviewers pick up faster. The uncommon words have been changed and I tried my best to make the commission remarks sound better, while maintaining the original translation. As for the rule of tincture - you're so right! I didn't pick that info at all, thanks for correcting. About the unsourced statements/paragraphs, I've tried to figure them out; could you point any specific? Parutakupiutalk || contribs05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding unsourced statements/paragraphs, the following seem to need a reference:
Paragraph beginning Adding to the sphere's significance
Removed pillories reference.
Paragraph beginning Resting on top of the armillary sphere, particularly the claim to be one of the oldest national symbols
Copy-edited and added source.
First paragraph under 1095-1248, particularly Henry of Burgundy receiving the County of Portugal. (Also, two paragraphs later it is not clear whether Sancho is inheriting a shield or a banner)
I'm not a heraldry expert so I might use unknowingly several terms which may have distinct heraldic meaning.
Source needed for Afonso II and Sancho II's use of the same banner as Sancho I
Added ref tag for "flag history" page where it lists the monarchs which used it.
1248-1495 - first paragraph should have source for majority of reconstructions display 16 castles
Removed; it was a unsourced personal statement.
(1495 - 1667, 3rd paragraph ends with an external link, which should be made into a footnote)
Footnoted.
1667 - 1830, end of first paragraph, should have a source for same flag being used for whole absolutist period
Moved previous ref tag to end of paragraph: it says there the flag was used by those monarchs.
Why was the first decree establishing the flag not legal, and what exactly is the diploma being talked about here?
Your misunderstanding is caused by my inaccurate translation. I already copy-edited that paragraph so that it really transmits what the source states.
Why is the Flag Day on 1 December not celebrated, and why are there Flag Days on Jan 31 and Oct 5?
Well, it just isn't, at least with that name - the most similar day is Portugal Day, on June 10. However, December 1 is still national holiday but celebrates only the Restoration of the Independence. Should I remove that "(currently not celebrated)" then? January 31 and October 5 are not Flag Days...
That is an expression very hard to translate into common English; it's written to sound very lyrical. It's a direct citation so I don't know if I should change the translation just to sound better in English. Parutakupiutalk || contribs20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started an article a while back, Postelsia, and I'd like some tips on how I could improve it. This is the first article I've started all by myself, and it's kind of hard to judge your own work. I would really like to improve it enough to be a good article, and maybe even that most coveted of prizes, featured article status. Any tips? Comments? Things I did absolutely wrong? Werothegreat12:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But OK. While it's here, I'll write here. When you do it right, you can move my comments to the right place. Don't forget to do the other stuff in the instructions, like marking on its talk page that it's on peer review, etc.
First issue I see is a lack of inline citations. Not that this seems to be a particularly controversial issue, of course, so you don't need to cite every sentence, but writing where you got what fact would be useful.
Nice photos, well done.
How big are they? Either give citable measurements, or display a photo including a person or their hand or something.
"Postelsia was first described by Franz Joseph Ruprecht near Bodega Bay in California" - who was FJR? A botanist, a random passerby, a '49er looking for gold? When was it first described? Where - in a diary, in a scientific journal, in a newspaper article, on a website?
"and has been used by several textbooks as an example of multicellular protists, as well as an example of the class Phaeophyceae." - what textbooks? Give at least some examples, or a citation saying that, or strike the sentence.
link or explain first mention of important and/or uncommon terms: intertidal zone, thallus, photosynthesis, , gametophytes, holdfast ... there are others, but I got tired of listing them. Some are linked in their second mention and not in their first. Was Habitat originally a lower section, then moved up? California is also linked in second mention, but not in first.
"an algae" but "The Brown Alga" - which is the correct singular?
The animation is cute, but distracting, and limited - typically you either display the whole cycle statically, or animate the whole cycle, this one seems to display most, and animate part.
Edible - cite or give an example of recipes using it
" illegal to harvest Postelsia for recreational use" - cite the law. "actually", "however" - is there a dispute about companies being able to harvest, but not individuals? If so, refer to or cite the actual debate. If not, we shouldn't express astonishment.
Where do harvesters get it? Do they maintain farms of their own, just trawl public coastlines, what?
I would like to have the article reviewed a second time, as it has just recently been granted good article status, and I would like to know what improvements could be made so that it might warrant featured article status. Werothegreat01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"History of Editions" reads somewhat like a list and could probably flow better -- but that's a fairly vague criticism.
You might want to rework the treatment of systemic bias; the language as it's written now is wishy-washy. Instead of using terms like "seems" and "presumably", I would mention the critic by name -- "Kister identifies a systemic bias..." or something. (Unless it's original research, in which case it should be removed.)
"Staff" contains another "presumably".
Whether Britannica does or does not contain an entry on Wikipedia seems irrelevant, especially under the "Competition" section.
This album was last reviewed in 2005, and since then has become a Good Article. Aside from general improvements, I want to make sure that the references are reliable and that the article flows well. --Brandt Luke Zorn05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new editior and have evolved a couple of other articles. This is the first one that I have made signficant changes to and for. Any constructive comments and criticisms are welcome. Thanks.LtlKtytalk | contribs04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the US National ... how does it have chapters in Brazil, etc?
"The official address can be found in the Articles of Incorporation on their website." Either give it or not, don't refer to something that can be spelled out in the same length.
What's it actually do? Give some examples with citations. Surely some of its actual work has been described in sources.
Who founded it? Why?
Any controversies?
What are its relations with other black organizations, other CoC's, etc?
What are some notable businesses it helped, and how?
Does it get involved in politics? How?
The Sponsorship section doesn't seem worth its space. Can it be compressed? Don't compress until fleshing out the above, though. Also it's a bit vague: "may continue" "was scheduled to".
Citation 4 seems to start with a period: '. "Exxon Mobil Corporation...'
This is a very good article; it was a pleasure to read. Here are my suggestions as you work towards FA.
There are quite a few sentences that de-emphasize their subject matter through awkward phrasing, wordiness or clause placement. Here are some examples:
His contributions to the art of drama include expanding the number of characters in plays from one to two, which allowed conflict and interaction between characters rather than limiting plays to dialogue between one character and the chorus. - Could you foreground his contribution in the sentence? For example, "He expanded the number of characters to allow for conflict between them; previously, characters interacted only with the chorus." (something like that)
Aeschylus' life and career took place in the context of the Persian invasion of Greece, which influenced the subject matter of many of his works. - "in the context of" sounds awkward to me. Which part of the sentence is most important? I have a feeling you want to emphasize that his works are about the Persian invasion, but this is only a secondary emphasis; try reworking for emphasis.
There followed a second competition of five comedic playwrights like Aristophanes, and the winners of both competitions were chosen by a panel of judges. - awkward - what do you want to emphasize?
The theme of the gods interfering in human affairs, and placing them in difficult situations, continues in Seven Against Thebes (Hepta epi Thebas), which was performed in 467 BC. - awkward opening phrase, particularly because the previous paragraph emphasizes that The Persians is about human events
Its tragic story of a war between Thebes and Argos also marks the first known appearance in Aeschylus' work of a theme which would continue through his plays, that of the polis (the city or citizenship) as the highest development of human civilization. - awkward and wordy - what do you want to emphasize?
one of these plays, Prometheus Bound, is sometimes thought not to be the work of Aeschylus - While attribution issues are important, I do not think this one belongs in the lead.
The young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy as soon as he woke, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old. - "as soon as he woke" is awkward
After fifteen years, his skill was great enough to win a prize for his plays at Athens' annual City Dionysia, a festival dedicated to Dionysus. - awkward
There is a sudden switch from playwriting to fighting in the middle of the "Life" section. Could you transition between the two, perhaps by giving us a bit of historical background? Did Aeschylus have to give up playwrighting to defend his country or something like that?
This pivotal defeat of the Persian King Darius' invading horde by the outnumbered soldiers of the Greek Delian League ended the first Persian invasion of Greece proper and was celebrated across the city-states of Greece. - what is an "invading horde" exactly? Perhaps that phrase should go.
However, the glory was tempered for Aeschylus personally when his brother was killed in the battle. - awkward - how about "However, the victory was bittersweet for Aeschylus because his brother was killed in the battle" (or something like that).
The crushing Athenian victory over the Persian fleet at Salamis was to become the subject of The Persians, his oldest surviving play, which was performed in 472 BC and won first prize. - won first prize at the Dionysia?
Aeschylus traveled to Sicily once or twice in the 470s BC, having been invited by Hieron of Syracuse, a major Greek city on the eastern side of the island. - it almost sounds like Hieron is a major Greek city
Sometimes you write Eumenides and sometimes The Eumenides.
I think you could say a little more about the themes of Agammemnon. At least a sentence or two. In fact, I think that the plays get short shrift in general. Maybe a little subsection on each play (there are only seven) with quotations? In particular, could you say more about Prometheus Unbound?
Pick an italicization scheme - are tetralogies italicized or not? You are inconsistent. Also, all play titles should be italicized.
Aeschylus added a second actor, such that the actors themselves could have conflicts and engage in dialogue, while the chorus took less immediate a role. - awkward
Your notes are not all formatted the same way. Also, I do not think it is necessary to write "page". It is more customary to simply include the author's name and the page number.
In your references, please include commas after the editors' names and before "ed" and since you have decided to include the place of publication, you should probably include it for all of the references for the sake of consistency.
I would think about removing these "External Links": IMDB list of films based on Aeschylus (you don't talk about pop cultural representations anywhere else); Schlegel, August Wilhelm, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, 1809 (just link from note), Selected Monologues by Aeschylus on Monologue Search (particularly this one, since you have to join to view) Awadewit02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As soon as he woke from the dream, the young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old.[4][3]" I think it is nicer if the notes are in the right order ([3][4]). Now, you can also avoid having citations in a row by combining them. See various ways of combining citations in Tourette syndrome, Battle of Edson's Ridge etc.
"The trilogy consists of Agamemnon, The Liberation Bearers (Choephoroi), and The Eumenides." Be careful with the wikilinks. In this sentence, for instance, instead of linking to the article (the section of another article to be accurate) about the play "Agamemnon", you linked to the mythological king. I fixed these links, but, in general, be careful with all these often confusing wikilinks.
I would like a more detailed analysis of his artistic traits and his literary importance. Why is he regerded as the greater ancient playright? What are the characteristics that make his art sublime? How did he influence Roman theatre, and did he even influence Shakespeare and other dramatists of this era? Has his work influenced the Western culture and theatre from Renaissance and afterwards? I think that questions like these ones could find some answers in the article.
You cite no primary sources. This may be a personal preference, but I think that secondary sources should supplement and co-exist with primary ones. But in Hippocrates, I had a similar argument presented, and the editor explained to me with solid arguments his choice to focus on just secondary sources. But, at least, we should know how do we know all this stuff about his life: who wrote down, and who transmitted this biographical information to the next generations, and to modern historical times? How do we know that he lived and did all these things while living?
Another question you would like maybe to answer in the article: who saved his works? Thanks to whom we have the chance to read his plays, and to know that Aeschylus is the person who wrote them? How did these masterpieces pass from one generation to the next one?--Yannismarou18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To back up what Yannismarou has said, the article needs a critical analysis of Aechylus' work as a whole. Indeed the section on Influence over Greek culture should be expanded to cover his influence on drama and the theatre as a whole. Certainly a section on Aeschylus' reputation through the ages would be most helpful (something like Shakespeare's reputation). Otherwise, this is a marvelous start to a very important article! I'm a theatre person and I would be most willing to help if you need it. I do have access to a fairly good academic library so I have access to some sources you may not have. Let me know if I can help. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some initial brief comments first, more later. The article seems very detailed and the overall flow is good. Obviously a lot of work has gone into this. Pictures are nice and well placed. The headings need to have the title "Sutton Hoo" removed per the WP:MOS. So the first heading "Sutton Hoo" could be "Site", the second "Discovery of Sutton Hoo: a modern legend" could be "Discovery: a modern legend" or even just "Discovery", etc. Some of the sections are very long and detailed and you may need to put them into their own separate article and leave a shorter summary in this main article (use summary style).
The article contains statements without references that need citation. Some of them use weasel words (italicized in quotes that follow) and seem to be WP:NPOV without references (and perhaps might be challenged even with citations, i.e. they may need other POV statements to balance them). For example, in "Discovery" one reads "Sutton Hoo is felt by many to be a magical place, and the legend surrounding its discovery and excavation adds to its allure and mysterious atmosphere." (be specific, say who feels this way, not just "many") or "By popular account she had a vivid dream of the funeral procession and treasures." (cite which popular account).
The organization / chronology is very odd and needs a better thread / connection - first there is a description of the location, then the story of the discovery in the 1930s (called a modern legend throughout, which seems very NPOV), then a section on the surroundings which runs from the Romans to 1974 and has lots of unreferenced claims. Then we move to the contents of the cemetery, which are related in the following mound number order: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 17, 2, 1. Next we have a huge section on Mound 1 (the ship burial) which could be its own subarticle. The following sections are on a new grave field excavated in 2000, then a discussion of Bede (ca. 600 AD), then Beowulf, then Art History and finally exhibitions. This has a lot of work before it is ready for FA. Also be consistent on style througout - one example: is it "Mr. Smith" or "Smith"? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be written all over again, since it contains many mistakes and does not conform to NPOV or any academic standard. However, some people engage in a pitched battle to avoid any change. The Talk:Scythians page enumerates an extensive list of serious proposals by several users. Rokus0115:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This request involves a review of the overall quality considering focus (Greater Iranian stance), reliability of sources (Herodotus!), NPOV and OR. Rokus0116:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all familiar with the controversy, so I'll try to give an outsider's view.
First, the article is a bit long (50 kB), and could be split. I suggest migrating "Historiography" and "Post-classical Scythians" into a new page. With luck, the new page could be about stories about the Scythians, with the existing page sticking to harder facts about the actual people. The title of the new page is up to you, but perhaps "Scythian mythos"? Another possibility is to split off Scythian archaeology. but see below.
There does seem to be a lot of duplication and uncited work here. It's almost as if competing editors got their own sections, with little attempt to build an overall whole. I'm no expert in the field, so I don't know which of the uncited stuff is right, but it detracts greatly from the page's quality.
The page isn't consistent about terminology; it sometimes calls the people "Scythians" and sometimes "Scyths". It'd be better to be consistent. If you settle on "Scyths" you should change the title of the page, but I suggest "Scythians" since that name is more popular among non-experts.
The Scythian warrior drawing is great. Most of the other images are nice too. The exceptions are the Tillia tepe photos and the throne arm; these didn't do a lot for me.
It was off-putting for me to have one section called "History and archaeology" and another called "Archaeology". I'd prefer a single story, preferably chronological; not two stories, one from a historian's point of view and another from an archaeologist's. And starting off "Origins and pre-history" with coverage of the language is pretty weird: it should start with origins, not with language.
You might take a look at Sassanid Empire for an article with a good section layout for this sort of article. (That article is too long too, but its organization is good.)
I noted too many "According to Professor so-and-so"s. The main text should stick to facts; put professors in the footnotes.
After writing the above review I wandered through the talk page. Wow. You guys don't need reviewers—you need a U.N. peacekeeping force! Anyway, good luck trying to find some diplomats to help you through the controversy, as the page really does need a lot of work. Eubulides21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latest article improvement drive on {{CWC Advert}}, an effort by WP:CRIC to get FAs related to the 2007 Cricket World Cup. The process of formatting refs, is still in progress, and maybe bits about outside cricket activities need to be improved, but the chronology of Harbhajan is complete and the relevant information is there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller's comments
First, congratulations for such an outstanding piece of work. You've worked so hard on this - without help from the collaborative as yet. I wondered if you'd communicated with our resident chart-maker, who's struggled to come up with a methodology for showing bowling performances, because of the idiosyncracies of the stats. I wondered if the PwC rating might be a way forward on this. Also, some stats in table form would be good. Re the copy - it's really good. A copyedit from ALoan is always a good idea once you're happy with it. I wondered about the naming of some of the section headings, but that's not even a minor gripe. All in all, well done and I'll try to post here with more specific stuff. --Dweller16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have given it a once-over, but it probably needs another pass. My main comment is that it is a bit dry, concentrating on the cricketing minutiae (his precise figures for each match, series, etc). I know, this is how cricket goes, but it would be nice to be a bit more, um, descriptive. I would not be too paranoid about eliminating redlinks, by the way: they encourage people to write articles. I have put some redlinks back - better to have a redlink for a subject that needs an article than remove the link. -- ALoan(Talk)17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tentative talk of basing modern cricket bio layouts on Paul Collingwood, I'm not convinced the current layout (i.e. headings) is perfect yet. I'd advise distinguishing clearly between his domestic and international careers.
I didn't bother with this since he was only playing regularly for Punjab when he was out of the Indian team for an extended period pre-2001. Aside from that, he probably only plays the sporadic 2-3 games for Punjab each year and has only played one season for Surrey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...Playing in six matches, he took 18 wickets at an average of 22.5, ranking outside the top 20 in both measures..." - top 20 what?
Stat-fest. I'm having similar issues with Adam Gilchrist in that, given the number of significant matches he's played in, his bowling stats are mentioned through, and it just feels like a statistic overload. As yet, I don't know how to solve it, but thought it worth mentioning since, for FA, this needs to appeal to all-comers.
"As in the first instance, he hit the winning runs, a straight-driven six." - not sure I like the start of the sentence, and probably worth citing such a event.
Batting scores - this is just a query - am I right in thinking we all refer to batting scores as runs/wickets except the antipodeans, and, if so, since this is not about an antipodean, batting scores should follow that principle? And are we happy with slash as delimiter rather than dash (or en- or em-dash, see WP:DASH although it's good for bedtime reading...!)
Dunno. I'll test it out at FAC.
"being forced to follow on..[31][33]" - one too many full-stops.
If possible, needs some more images/graphs (as per Dweller) to break up the article, lots of text to wade through and the odd picture wouldn't go amiss. I know it's difficult though, so this one isn't so significant, but we should aim to make this accessible to all.
Aiming to submit to FAC and looking for advice and comments on what needs to be changed, improved or altered to be sucsessful. Significant work has been done already, but I feel I am reading the same lines too many times now and so some outside eyes would be helpful, Thanks. SFC939420:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on getting this article about John Locke's work on education up to FA quality. I would appreciate feedback on which sections need expansion, what is missing from the article and general stylistic suggestions. Thank you. Awadewit20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is extremely short compared to the article.
I agree - I will expand it.
The first paragraph of historical context section is a little oddly placed; it seems more logical to place the discussion of critical reception after the historical background.
I have moved it and will now revise the text so that it fits in better.
"...nurture their child’s physical “habits” before pursuing its academic education" - I know people like to have long pointless disputes about pronouns, but referring to a child as 'it' is pretty awkward.
It's fairly common in the academic literature, but I'll try to switch everything to the plural so that I'm not stuck with he/she.
Western child-rearing manuals are obsessed with food and sleep? Obsessed?
They are obsessed. They really are - it's amazing.
Where Essay Concerning Human Understanding is wikilinked, the full title should be written out.
Done.
The virtue section says that Locke considered children reasoning beings, but in the last sentence 'children are irrational when young'. That's obviously not a contradiction, but it is an invitation to more information here; did Locke discuss any specific aspects of children's reasoning faculties that were deficient?
Tried to clarify.
There are several occurrences - I first noticed it in the curriculum section - of 'we would call', 'we see', etc., which is generally deprecated.
I will fix those.
"While Locke began writing Some Thoughts on Education as a guide for educating an aristocrat's son,..." - the impression I got at the beginning is that the letters weren't initially intended as the working draft of a book, but this phrasing implies that he was writing a book from the beginning.
I will fix that.
The class section is very short; is there more to be said on the topic? Did Locke express any opinion about how the lower classes ought to be educated?
I can add in some quotes from "Essay on the Poor Law."
Since you were so careful to add the appropriate sics for all the archaic spellings, is 'educatin' in Coste's quote a typo or in the original? Same with 'he busy sunbeams' later.
Fixed.
"the fact that it was never published allowed readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the “different treatments” required for girls and boys, if any" - 'it' = the view Locke expressed in his letter to Mrs. Clarke? Since current readers will have access to this kind of information, maybe this should be 'contemporary readers' or similar.
Will do.
The last sentence is awkwardly written; it's one of those, with, too, many, commas.
Will, remove, commas.
The reception section could be fleshed out, and could reach further forward in time. Given the claims in the lead - most important work on education in Britain for a century - there must be more to include about this. I don't know if there's much to say about modern influence, but surely John Dewey had something to say about the Lockean model, for example?
I don't know about Dewey, but I can say more about the eighteenth century.
Update: a quick look while I was in the bookstore says Dewey does discuss Locke's influence in Democracy and Education, though not too much in relation to his own views as far as I can tell. I'd elaborate further, but I can't find my own copy of the book :( It'd be nice to see some later influences, though, since I think it will be interesting for most readers to see the modern echoes of such a classic work. Opabinia regalis01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful. The only concern that I have about including that information is that the article would skip from Maria Edgeworth (1798) to John Dewey (c.1900) with nary a word about the nineteenth century's reaction to Locke. Since Locke's primary educational influence was on the eighteenth century, I stopped with Edgeworth. I would hate to include Dewey without at least mentioning what happened in between, but I am ill-equipped to do so and I am not sure that Locke really did affect nineteenth-century education in a significant way. As I understand it, the nineteenth-century dramatically switched its focus to scientifically-based theories of education (Bell and Lancastarian systems of education come to mind). I also don't want to be accused of making overly dramatic claims for Locke's influence. I already think that some people reading the page might argue this point (for example, those who study Locke's philosophy or political works) and claiming that Locke's influence stretched from 1700 to 1900 without any solid timeline would only serve to provoke them, I believe. If someone with more knowledge than myself could prove such a timeline, though, I would obviously welcome their contributions. Awadewit15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I just had to check once I'd thought of it. I have a tiny speck of knowledge about Western educational trends in the 20th century but not even that much any earlier, so I'll just leave my suggestion here in case someone else stumbles across it ;) Opabinia regalis02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Western child-rearing manuals are still dominated by the topics of food and sleep." - sorry, writing "they really are" isn't enough. You need a citation, a reliable source saying that.
Reception - surely it couldn't have been all positive. For example, he directly attacked Oxford and Cambridge, surely they must have said something, or had defenders.
He was attacking them implicitly (more so in the Essay). This is a book about raising a child and really, there were very few negative reactions. I can add in some criticisms, but as far as I know, the scholarship says that the criticisms were few and far between. (My dissertation is partly on how scholarship has ignored the criticisms of Locke in the late eighteenth century. If you know of any criticism, please let me know because there is just very little.)
Historical context and publication - why was Locke more successful than John Evelyn, John Aubrey, John Eachard, and John Milton ?
I will try to find a published explanation of why.
Heck, why were they all called John, what is this, a conspiracy?!? :-)
I know! What is that?
"the humanist educational values of the Renaissance" - this bit combined with the next sentences seems to say that those values consisted of venerating Aristotle. Surely that's not true, the Renaissance was about going beyond Aristotle, hence Galileo, etc.
Well, a large part of the Renaissance was about resurrecting the Greek and Roman past (see Renaissance and Humanism). From around 1400-1650, the "ancients," as they said, held sway. That is why there was a neo-classical revolution in art. It was not until the seventeenth century that a critical mass of people began to question the authority of the ancients (in England, Francis Bacon was particularly instrumental in this process). Throughout the eighteenth century there was what was called the debate of the "ancients vs. the moderns," which was about the authority of the classics. The major question was, could modern man ever hope to reach the artistic and philosophical level of the ancients? It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that this question was answered with an emphatic "yes." This is why it was during the eighteeenth century that Shakespeare became a British national icon. The "modern" camp adopted him as an example of genius who was not ancient.
Our Renaissance article does say "Aristotle", it also says "advancements of science"; "everything ends with Aristotle" doesn't sound like it leaves much room for advancement. Can you just strike the wod --AnonEMouse(squeak)03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to strike? Let's not get ahead of ourselves with "scientific advancements." The Renaissance allowed Europe to rediscover classical sources which allowed them to starting thinking about all sorts of new topics and to break away from Christian traditions. In response, natural philosophers of the seventeenth century looked at the humanists of the Renaissance and said "they rely too much on the ancients, we can do our own experimentation like the ancients did." And thus the scientific revolution was born. This is an extremely simplified view, but the Renaissance was not primarily about great advancements in science (Galileo is the exception). Think of all the giants in the seventeenth century: Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Huygens, Hooke, etc. See Scientific Revolution. Awadewit04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy - how did this impact later authors and works in the field? This seems to have been a milestone book in the field, with most other works citing it - what was or were the next milestone(s), and how did it differ from or expand upon Locke's views? --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that that information would belong on a history of the philosophy of education page such as this one Philosophy of education. I have traced Locke's influence as far as it goes. After the turn of the century, other philosophies take over and I think that this page should be restricted to Locke's Some Thoughts. Awadewit22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Overview section is redundant. That's what the lead is for.
The lead is too short for an article this long. According to WP:LEAD, it should be between two and three paragraphs, and I think that's about right. A few things you could put in the intro: how long the program has existed, number of national and conference championships, maybe a few NFL players from the program, a period of exceptional achievement, if there is one.
Consider reordering the sections. Right now the focus of the first section is the mascot. It seems to me History should come before Traditions.
Cut down on the headers. The article has some sections, such as Rocky Top, that are barely even paragraphs. Superfluous headers clog up the Table of Contents and needlessly fragment the article.
Most of the charts and lists near the end are useful, but I'd delete past and present players. I have two reasons for this. First, editors tend to indiscriminately add their favorites to these lists so that they quickly run out of control. Second, it's redundant, considering Category:Tennessee Volunteers football players already exists.--Djrobgordon09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly general issues. If you'd like, I could do a more thorough read and point out some spots where the writing is weak, sources are needed, or more information would be useful. Sometimes people enter Peer reviews and never follow through, so I don't like to put in the time unless I know someone's on the other end. This should keep you busy for a little bit, though. --Djrobgordon09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope for comments of all kinds. Should I use the Album covers rather than the Single covers? Do I ever break NPOV? Is it too redundant, or does it cover enough information? Anything you think could help is completely welcomed. Thanks in advance. abarry✓19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a lot of good information in the article, but the structure is not optimal. Essentially, the article tells the history of the group three, even four or more times. We start with the general history, then we have the history of the membership, then the history of the leaders, then the history of their albums . . . . Ideally, at least the first three of these should be combined into just one history section. For example, you can simply add a sentence to the appropriate paragraph noting when a new leader was chosen or an old member was replaced by a new one. At the very least, "Members" and "Leaders" shoul be merged into a single section.
And for an article on a musical group, there are various other topics that need to be covered. For example, where is the discussion of Morning Musume's influence on other performers? On J-pop in general? Where is the discussion of critical reaction to the group? Where is the discussion about their songs, the themes in them, etc.? Their style? Perhaps the "Milestones" section could be converted into prose and combined into a "Sales and critical reaction" section discussing general successes and criticisms of the band.
I also think that you will run into trouble with the fair use police if you put this up at WP:FAC. For a currently performing band, you should be able to find some freely licensed images, perhaps at flickr.com, or by putting up requests on fan message boards. The fair use images you retain need to be of subjects specifically and critically discussed in the body of the article. You might also consider adding a few (short, low-quality) audio samples.
I'll merge the leaders and members section and add it to a new article if anything. I think it's important to have a list for things like this because trying to search through the information in paragraphs of text is a little difficult.
I don't know their influence on other performers and I don't even know if it exists. I think perhaps it has an influence on jpop in general but more on the idol world of jpop than anything. The discussion about the songs can often be found on the singles pages, as not to clutter up the page needlessly with info about every little song. Since the group is so changing and versatile it's difficult to discuss one specific "theme" or even a few found throughout their songs.
It's extremely difficult to get fair use images of jpop stars. If Ayumi Hamasaki doesn't even have one, I highly doubt we can get them for Morning Musume. I thought it was okay to use the single covers/album covers though? Or are you talking about only the first image?
You seem to be dismissing almost all of my suggestions. That is your decision, but I just wanted to tell you the sort of objections you will face if you decide to pass this article as a Good Article or Featured Article. A lot of the information you claim doesn't exist most likely does exist, you just have to do more research. It seems you can read Japanese, so that's a huge advantage for you in finding better sources for the article (one idea is to try traditional paper sources from academia). As for the fair use issue, according to WP:FU, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. . . . if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." It goes on to say that fair use images "must not serve a purely decorative purpose." These reasons are why you will run into issues at GA or FA. Good luck, — Brian (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dismissing them-- In fact, I've made a thread over at JPH!P about the information and the image, and only got this response:
'As for the fair-use image, I'm afraid that, even being a fan-taken one, it won't be useful for the wikipedia.
Japan's personal image rights are quite more strict than in other countries, meaning that you can't publish a picture of someone without express consent, regardless of where did you take the picture from. The only thing you can do to help it is asking the people involved or the company that manages their image rights to give consent for the publication of the images.'
I am not a lawyer, but Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, in the United States, where Japan's laws do not apply. I think you'll be okay if you can find a freely licensed fan-taken image, and the fair-use cops are going to require this at FAC. — Brian (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any helpful comments and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I woud like to improve this article to a GA level. J.D.20:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by bcasterline
Great movie. A few suggestions for the article:
The lead should summarize more of the article per WP:LEAD. The cast might deserve it's own section; in any case, the list in the intro probably doesn't belong.
Shorten "Synopsis" if possible, leaving out the smaller details. Also, I would avoid expressions like "massive invasion", "instantly slaughtered", etc. -- I don't think they really belong in an encyclopedia.
Add references for the "Style and themes" per WP:V/WP:OR.
Expand/cleanup "Adaptations". At the moment it reads like a list, which is kind of sloppy.
Expand "Criticisms" and "Responses" -- lots of information on critical acclaim/public response is usually valuable.
Okay, so since the cricket world cup is being hosted in the West Indies, I think the hosts should have a push to get it up to the next level/FA.--Thugchildz00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fairly comprehensive. A few things (forgive me if I'm nitpicking):
Lead could be improved, I think. The last two mini-paragraphs are not summary of the following article, and the various historical incidents mentioned later in the article are not included.
Some of the wording could be improved: the use of "supposedly" in "...which the Sir Creek is supposedly not" connotes (to me) that the author thinks it probably is; and "Another point that irks Pakistan is..." is a litle awkward.
You might consider separating "Dispute" into "Basis for the Dispute", which would detail the reasons for the dispute, and "History", which would include events like the Atlantique Incident and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. A single section might be best -- but something to think about.
Since the subject of the article is Sir Creek, not Sir Creek dispute, you might want to include more information on the creek itself -- geography and so on. There are a couple of sentences in the lead about the creek, but the rest of the article is about the dispute.
The article has undergone a big cleanup in the past few weeks. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions which might take this article to GA or FA. Thanks very much for your time. ĤĶ51→Łalk14:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I cannot find any issues with this article that would prevent me from rating it as a GA. Don't have any experience with FAs but there are some minor issues to address.
Stenning, Paul; Rob Johnstone (November 2005). AC/DC - Two Sides to Every Glory. Chrome Dreams, 32-34. ISBN 1-8424-0308-7 should be listed as Stenning P., Johnstone R. (2005) with the full citation in the References section per the format used for Walker C. (1994)
remove the brackets from the front of the Walker C.... citations.
Not too keen on the format for the album/single lists - perhaps the format from Maria_Carey#Discography ?
A few too many sentences starting On/In <date> X happened which gets a bit hard to read after the first few
Try AC/DC released a box set named Bonfire as a tribute to Scott on 18 November 1997 instead of On 18 November 1997, a box set named Bonfire was released by AC/DC as a tribute to Scott for example
Since I helped a lot in writing the French article (a featured article), I thought I'd give a hand with its English counterpart. I think my English is fine, however I need someone to check the body of the article for syntax, grammar, style conventions, or any typo that might have remained. (Didyaknow, after 2 zillions hours spent on a page, it totally disappears???) Don't mind the Known works and References section, I will deal with them shortly. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a good article, but I would say that, overall, the article is very abstract and needs to define its terms more often and explain Anaximander's ideas, when possible, using modern terminology.
If you want this to reach FA, I would expand the lead to 2-3 fuller paragraphs. It should reflect the shape of the entire article WP:LEAD. Also, I would delete the moon reference - is that really one of the most significant facts about Anaximander?
Please identify all sources that you name in the main body of the text for the general reader. Alas, not everyone knows who Themistius is, for example.
Themistius mentions that Anaximander was the "first of the known Greeks to publish a written document on nature" and by this very fact, his texts would be amongst the earliest written in prose. - you mean, first amongst the Greeks?
The "Biography" section seems a little choppy. I know that there is very little information on Anaximander, but is it possible to make it flow a litle better?
I don't see the need for making the quote bold and big in "The apeiron" section.
Done.
The first paragraph of the "Cosmology" section is unclear. For example, what does It confirms an early effort in the demythification of the genealogical process mean?
He was also the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different distances. - unclear - do you mean the first system that postulated both rotating bodies and bodies at different distances?
Bertrand Russell in The History of Western Philosophy interprets the above quote as an assertion of the necessity of an appropriate balance between earth, fire, and water elements, all of which may be independently seeking to aggrandize their proportions relative to the others. - this is confusing - what quote?
Martin Heidegger was known to have lectured extensively on Anaximander (along with Parmenides and Heraclitus) and wrote a section in Off the Beaten Track called "Anaximander's Saying" in which he examines the ontological difference and the oblivion of Being or Dasein in the pre-Platonics. - could you say more about this?
I did some copyediting as I was reading the text but I would suggest that you have the League of Copyeditors take a quick look at this article as well. Even better, someone who knows something about Greek philosophy. I was reluctant to change some things because of my lack of knowledge of Greek philosophy. Awadewit06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MoS single years like "in 1790" should not be linked. Only full dates: "in January 11790 ..."
"He died at sea in 1806, near Charleston, South Carolina,[1] possibly due to yellow fever.[2]" IMO it is not nice to have a stubby paragraph like this in the lead.
"Early life" is stubby. Merge or expand.
"He is known, however, to have served in the Triangular trade of South Carolina, aboard the Pacific." Known by whom? Citation needed.
"On September 30, 1787", "On September 17, 1788". Per above, the dates here should be linked.
"Additional ships to explore the coast under the command of Captain George Vancouver.[citation needed] ...". These [citation needed]s should be fixed.
"And in 1788 Gray had attempted to enter a large river..." Why do you start the sentence here with "and"?
"Circumnavigation" is stubby and uncited.
"Gray then finished filling his cargo hold with pelts and set sail for China. In Canton, Gray again traded his cargo for tea. He then returned to Boston.[1] Gray returned to Boston in 1793, after again circumnavigating the globe." Repetitive and choppy prose.
"Legacy" is uncited.
In some of your printed sources used as "Notes", you have no pages.
The websites you have in "References" are not used as inline citations if I'm not wrong. If I'm right, then they are "External links" not "References".
I would like to improve this to good, maybe featured status in the future. Besides citations, I need to know what needs the most improvement. Mr.Z-mantalk¢02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old nomination, but some comments anyway:
"Description" would benefit from some more inline citations.
The trivium about William Beaumont under "Early commerce" is not obviously relevant. I would either add more information about the incident or remove it.
The information under "Miscellaneous topics" should be incorporated into other things (which I think I can be) or removed. WP:TRIV is good advice.
Thank you, I'm in the process of rewritng/sourcing and I have not quite gotten to the Description section, but I will take your advide on the Beaumont trivia and eliminate or reduce it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review!23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a bit more about all the different historic places on the island wouldn't be amiss. You've got Fort Mackinac and the Grand Hotel, but there are some others too. I rated it a "B", though, for the WP:NRHP, 'cause it's at least that good right now, IMHO. :) --Ebyabe19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AnonEMouse
Good work. Get these issues, especially the citations, fixed, and I'd mark it as WP:GA.
The city of Mackinac Island occupies the entire island as well as all of Round Island...Round Island is currently uninhabited - If not directly contradictory, it's close. Something uninhabited isn't usually thought of as being occupied. How about "includes" rather than "occupies"?
Use of citations are weird. Some of the later paragraphs have no fewer than 4, while the earlier paragraphs don't have any. Spread them around a bit, please. In the later paragraphs, how about moving some of the citations to the specific sentence, rather than just after the paragraph as a whole? Otherwise it's not clear what is actually backed by citations, and what isn't.
Cite that Round Island is owned by the forest svce; cite fort george/fort holmes; cite the numbers; cite that no camping is allowed ...
Okay, I've fixed the grammatical, spelling, and DAB things. I moved as many refs as I could to make them more specific as to what they cite but most are used for either the whole paragraph they follow or multiple sentences scattered in the paragraph. The most offending section was culture, but those are now all distributed. I'm still working on "Description". I'm probably going to end up removing much of it as Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide and there is already an article about Mackinac Island, the town.Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review!21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't kill yourself, or remove too much, you need to say why it is unique and interesting. The section is only 17 sentences, maybe 10% of the article. I like it. :-)
"Every summer, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of Michigan live and work on the island in alternating weeks." - all the G&BS of MI? Is it a requirement for all MI scout troops? If not all, rephrase, and state how many (both raw numbers, and percentage or fraction). Do G&BS from any other states participate? If not, are they not allowed to, or just not interested?
Can probably remove the parens from around (when in groups), I got nasty comments about using any parens in my FAC
uniforms are held to a much higher standard - what does that mean?
I've already fixed up the Description section before your comment, I only removed what was just random facts to make it seem more coherent. The main source for the scouting section seemed to say that there is no set number of troops or scouts and that not all scouts from a troop attend. It said there is a minimium of 50 though. I clarified "higher standard" to "full dress uniform is required when on duty or walking in public." Only in 1 year were other states invited (1940), so I don't think it is too relevant. I also added some of the selection criteria. I've also nominated it for GAC. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review!22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get this article to FA or GA status. The article had another peer review in January, but it did not get that much feedback. I have made the few changes outlined in that review and am wondering if you could assit me by providing comments on the article. Thanks, Cbrown1023talk02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my activity on the article has been in adding citations, I was the one who added the {{fact}} tag to the only remaining statement that needs citing. I find it disheartening that you say "More citations!" but don't even state where or if they are needed. Cbrown1023talk23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Here are specific statements that really should be cited:
According to the Lateran Treaty, certain properties of the Holy See that are located in Italian territory, most notably Castel Gandolfo and the Patriarchal Basilicas, enjoy extraterritorial status similar to that of foreign embassies. Probably both a citation to the Treaty and a legal analysis making the comparative judgement are necessary.
The Holy See has the oldest active continuous diplomatic representation or service in the world, dating back to at least AD 325 with its legation to the Council of Nicea. Any superlative statement such as this needs citation.
A noble class still exists today that continues to form part of the papal court drawn from the ranks of Roman and European nobility. Citations are helpful for supporting statements of partial contemporary continuity like this.
Therefore, within this context, the State of the Vatican City is a true, although elected, monarchy in every sense of the word. It's a statement of logical conclusion following supporting statements of fact, but building logical arguments gets into original research. Citation would avoid that.
Budget: Revenues (2003) 252 million USD; expenditures (2003) 264 million USD.
The Vatican has no official language. Because of conventional wisdom to the contrary stemming from the discussion that suceedes this, the sentence should be cited. Ditto for German is the official language of the Swiss Guard.
Vatican City State is a recognized national territory under international law.
Despite its minuscule size, as the veritable headquarters of the Catholic Church, the Vatican's influence on world affairs is disproportionately immense by virtue of its moral and spiritual authority. Original research concern here, despite the tautology.
...the state has the highest per capita crime rate of any nation on earth, more than twenty times higher than that of Italy.' Difficult to determine if the citations further down in the paragraph cover this statement as well. -Fsotrain0905:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 ft, use 4 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 ft.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 4 ft.
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation).
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.”
This article looks pretty good. Here are my suggestions:
On my browser, the text of the article didn't start until the bottom of the infobox which made me think when I initially got the page that there was no article - there was just this infobox and a huge white space at the top.
The lead is a bit dry and should be expanded to at least try and summarize the article. WP:LEAD
The name "Vatican" is ancient and predates Christianity, coming from the Latin Mons Vaticanus, Vatican Hill. The territory of Vatican City is part of the Mons Vaticanus, and of the adjacent former Vatican Fields - so, is the name Roman? be as explicit as possible
Being separated from the city, on the west bank of the Tiber river, the area was an outcrop of the city that was protected by being included within the walls of Leo IV, and later expanded by the current fortification walls of Paul III/Pius IV/Urban VIII. - the "beings" are awakward - reword
The article is vastly undercited. If you want to go for FA, you will need many more citations. They seem to have a rule of thumb over there of at least one citation per paragraph. It is better to overcite than undercite - then you don't get into any tiffs with the reviewers. Besides, it makes wikipedia look better to the outside world and readers are given more sources to go to when they want more information.
Even before the arrival of Christianity, it is supposed that this originally uninhabited part of Rome (the ager vaticanus) had long been considered sacred, or at least not available for habitation. The area was also the site of worship to the Phrygian goddess Cybele and her consort Attis during Roman times. - move "during Roman times" to the beginning so that the reader knows when you are talking about
define "circus" - modern readers will think "Barnum and Bailey"
Shouldn't the territory illustration be next to the "Territory" section?
After a nominal resistance by the papal forces. - sentence fragment
There is a picture in the "History" section that is not appearing - only code. Same in the "Administration" section.
Tell the reader who Marconi is - not everyone knows, sadly.
For FA, you will need to prune the external links.
What about a section on Vatican City's architecture? Perhaps something on that could be included in the culture section? I would also like to see an expansion of that section.
This is something of an underrated film even among fans of the Coen brothers. I think that the article is already off to a good start but I would like to improve it even more. Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you have an easy first step of fair use rationale for images.
I'd move the budget into production--at least the numbers if you think most expensive Cohen film at the time is important then keep that. But, I'd definitely make the intro probably two more fleshed out paragraphs and no hanging sentences like the Wheel of Fortune one. Like how Casablanca (film) does it. grenグレン11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD. One good suggestion from there is to include at least part of a sentence about every important section of the article.
Why so much on the music in the lead? Was it that important in the movie? I recommend moving the music down into a section of its own. Was there a soundtrack released?
first section, wikilink New Years Eve, Hula hoop, frisbee.
Norville is chased down the street by an angry mob to the Hudsucker building - what made the mob angry?
Moses stops the clock and time freezes - huh? Need to explain Moses's mystical powers a bit more. If he has divine powers, why does he have to fight Aloysius - or is Aloysius also more than human? Heck, what are M and A's motivations?
goes on to "rule with wisdom" - rule what, the company? why the quote marks?
action."[1]One - need a space after the ref
Production - wikilink skyscraper, since it's so important
While trying to sell their feature film debut Blood Simple, - be more specific, give a date
the scale after Citizen Kane (1941).- in what sense is the scale based on a famous movie?
it was a box office flop, grossing less than $3,000,000 in the US. - this needs to be moved after the test shootings text, don't you think? In fact, I'd move it all the way to Reaction.
More reaction - this only describes immediate reaction, what about reaction over the last 15 years? Any more recent films based on it, any more recent reviews, retrospectives, references?
References - the Retrieved on dates are red links, try again, maybe need leading 0s? Also some refs have double double quotes, as in ""A Rock on the Beach,"
External links - describe the links more. Coenesque - isn't there a more specific subpage for this film?
Okay, so continuing the trend of pushing as many cricket articles to GA/FA, I'd appreciate comments on Gilly's article. The things I am aware of at the moment:
A number of citations are still required - help with these would be great.
There's insufficient information on his background e.g. family, upbringing, schooling etc.
I'm afraid of the article deteriorating into a stat-fest so need some quality writing.
The tail-end of the article needs to be better integrated.
"Achievements" section could be converted from list into smooth, cohesive prose which ties together the subsection as a whole. Prose is always better than list. LuciferMorgan03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead probably needs expanding slightly, considering the length of his career. However, I can't really think where. Helpful, eh?
The stuff on his son Archie's birth can be trimmed a bit. "Gilchrist is married to Mel and has two sons Harrison and Archie and a daughter Annie" would probably read better, with a smaller bit about Archie's "involvement" in the 2007 cup.
The business stuff might be introduced with a line like "Gilchrist is involved in a number of businesses outside of cricket" just so the reading flows a bit more and the paragraphs don't seem so isolated.
"He quickly established himself as the Australian ODI wicketkeeper, ousting Ian Healy in the process,[16] and becoming the 129th Australian ODI cap.[23]" that highlighted bit reads oddly, and would work better inserted onto the end of "Gilchrist was called up for the Australian One–day International (ODI) team in 1996, his debut coming against South Africa at Faridabad, October 25, 1996.[2][22]" Indeed, the non-highlighted bit would be better after the details of his debut, as the beginning part of this sentence "Gilchrist replaced Healy for the first two ODIs in..." (although if you did that you'd need to make the Texaco cup bit a different sentence)
Calling Langer his long-time friend sounds a bit editorialising. I mean, I bet they are but there's no way to cite that and it sounds a bit newspapery, if you get my meaning.
In general the article needs a few more highlights - hundreds, games he captained, vital innings, big wicket hauls, MOTM awards etc. Otherwise it's well on its way. Cheers, HornetMike01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nichalp
Needs a copyedit just like the Collingwood article. Choppy prose, and at times a POV. He is an emotional player -- worst kind of POV.
Agreed. Have removed the worst kind of POV, and will look for a suitable (hopefully neutral) copyeditor to scan over it. Work to do in the meantime however, I think. The Rambling Man18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how it calling someone "emotional" POV? Either they are (often demonstrably, crying or smiling, for example) or they are not (I have yet to see a poker-faced cricket player). -- ALoan(Talk)12:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen
Needs more of a chronological evolution to show how things happened. I have added in a section about his rise in ODI, as it is not clear (previously) how he came to take Healy's place in ODIs, with the new TEst/ODI team separation (Otherwise, Healy would likely have stayed under the old conservative policy). Added to that I added a bit about how he was not successful at first, batting at No. 7, low average, and got a chance to open after the other guys could not open properly. I should do the bit about the Test rise as well, or Healy's slump. Aside from that, there is no chrnoological description in the article, especially about becoming VC in 2000, being skipped over for captain with Ponting jumping ahead of him, and just his career generally. This might be a huge article though, considering the huge amount of matches he has played (almost twice as many as Harbhajan, which will be 50k when finished ). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent stuff, thanks. Some of this has already been addressed. Sorry it took so long to say thanks - I've been struggling with monobooks. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. --Dweller11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed it. As there was with Paul Collingwood, there is a tendency to assume familiarity with cricket: using shorthand when the full titles would be better (I think I've fixed most of these), and some terms that I'm sure are used regularly by commentators but would be better expressed differently for the non-cricketing reader (although I love "astonishing slogfest" it probably isn't the most encyclopedic of terms). Some problems with consistency in the terms: wicket-keeper, wicketkeeper; One day, one-day, One-day; number seven, No. 7 (I fixed this to No. 7); 2000/01 2000-1 2000-2001. I see Blnguyen has pointed out some areas where it is lacking which look like they would be good additions, but I'd be wary of listing every match: [blasphemy warning] unless something notable happens, how many runs he scored or wickets he took isn't that interesting. I've also left a couple comments in the article in comment tags where I couldn't work out what was meant or the relevance of the sentence (or in one case where there was speculation over Hoggard's sportsmanship). Yomanganitalk11:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close to nominating this at FAC. Promoted to GA this month, upgraded to A-class within schools only hours ago. I'm looking for a few feutral people to help me determine how close it is. PhoenixTwo03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.[reply]
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 metre, use 15 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15 metre.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), program (A) (British: programme).
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.”
The Silent Hill film page has been GA for a few months now. The editors all did a great job and I'm looking to push its quality up higher, possibly to a higher rating or FA. I'm looking for any and all feedback and comments regarding the article.
In general, it needs more citations, especially inline citations about specific things. (Platinums, numbers, quotes, etc.) You seem to be using cite web - that's good, but the template needs to be filled out as much as you can - authors, for example, and publishers. The online citations all need a 'last accessed' date, in case they ever 404 on us, then we can use the Internet Archive. The testimonials from other musicians - couldn't that be said to be part of Queen's influence? I'd suggest you move the quotes into that section. The tone sometimes reads a bit unencyclopaedic - the League of Copyeditors may be able to help you there. Hope this helps. -Malkinann22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 2007 Cricket World Cup is coming up, Pathan will be playing, and this article is currently GA and throughly covers his career I think. It's a pity that there are no free pics of him so that it could be put on the main page during the World Cup if it passed FA, but I may as well solicit feedback anyway since WikiProject Cricket is on a big FA drive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"After opening both the batting and bowling in late 2005 and early 2006, Pathan was dropped from the team in both Test and ODI forms of the game." - this doesn't mention that he's back in the team
"Pathan made his first-class debut in the 2000-01 season, after fellow left-arm paceman Zaheer Khan was selected for the national team, helping Baroda to win the Ranji Trophy." - confusing. maybe something like:
"Pathan made his first-class debut for Baroda in the 2000-01 season, after fellow left-arm paceman Zaheer Khan left to join the national team, and helped them to win the Ranji Trophy."
"Pathan further honed his bowling at the MRF Pace Foundation in Chennai, after being selected by Indian selector Kiran More." - selected? for what? AFAIK, you don't need to be selected for the academy, especially not by the Indian national team selector.
"...where he was the leading wicket-taker with 18, more than twice that of the second leading wicket-taker." - "second leading wicket-taker" sounds wrong.
"...Pathan was the leading wicket-taker with 16 wickets at 31." - at 31...? economy rate?
"He also took eight wickets at 17.8 in three ODIs..."
"...leading wicket-taker with 14 wickets at 16.28..."
"...five wickets at an average of 9."
"...18 wickets at 11.88..."
"...taking only six wickets at 68.33..."
"...ten wickets at 16.1..."'
"...21 wickets at 11.29..."
"...ten wickets at 25.6..."
"...seven wickets at 26..."
"...nine wickets at 18.88..."
"...eight wickets at 39.37 and scoring 121 runs at 24.2..."
"...eleven wickets at 15.63 including 4/51 at Goa and 123 runs at 41..."
"...24 runs at 6 and 6 wickets at 29.83..."
"...taking wickets at an average of 41.33."
"..scored 560 runs at 35..."
"Pathan continued his batting improvement with a defiant 31 and 55, his first half-century after the specialist batsmen had failed in the First Test against Australia in October 2004 in Bangalore, but his career was put on hold after he suffered a side strain in the following Test in Chennai, causing him to miss the Tests in Nagpur and Mumbai." - not smooth, consider breaking into 2 sentences
"Former India paceman Javagal Srinath..." - I'm not to sure about this one. should it be "Indian"?
"These concerns were further magnified in late 2006, when Pathan was demoted from the position of an opening bowler in ODIs during the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy, and was dropped from some matches altogether and again was limited to sporadic ODI appearances on the November ODI tour to South Africa." - 2 ands, break into 2 sentences or more.
"He subsequently fell out of the Top 10 of the ICC bowling rankings and the Top 5 of the All rounder rankings after having spent the previous year in the list." - at what positions? Please mention in the previous section (I assume "the previous year" would mean 2005; state explicitly anyways)
"Despite top scoring in both innings of a first-class warm-up match in Potchefstroom whilst many specialist batsmen failed to cope with the bouncy conditions, selectors overlooked Pathan for the First Test in Johannesburg." - when? November 2006? There is a serious overall lack of dating of events in the article. Where the months have been given the year has not. Yes, most readers can make out by reading 4-5 lines above (in most cases), but this article is not ready to be FA till this concern has been cleared up, and the events' timeline easy to comprehend.
Please note that I have not given all of the instances where such a problem occurs. You will have to go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and clear it up of this problem.
"After a poor bowling display in the subsequent tour match in which he conceded 74 runs in 11 overs..." - what tour? another problem is lack of detail.
Please note that I have not given all of the instances where such a problem occurs. You will have to go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and clear it up of this problem.
Yes, the 2007 Cricket World Cup is coming up, Karthik will be playing, and this article is currently GA and throughly covers his relatively short career to date I think. It's a pity that there are no free pics of him so that it could be put on the main page during the World Cup if it passed FA, but I may as well solicit feedback anyway since WikiProject Cricket is on a big FA drive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He started his career as a batsman, but switched to wicket-keeping in order to improve his future prospects." - cite?
In the hopes of refining the above article to meet FA status (at the prompting of some other users), it would be useful to have some outside editors review the piece and voice their opinions - allowing for a viewpoint beyond the three or four regular contributors to the article. --G2bambino20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Scotland's third largest city. There has been a lot of editing lately on this article and would like to help make it a featured article. As this is the first article I have worked on to this level and I would like a peer review so that I can get a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses. Bobbacon12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a good copyedit to start with and if going for FA more referencing would be good. I haven't read the whole article yet but these are some points from the 1st few sections:
Swap the order of the 2 sentences in the opening paragraph?
The sentence 'There has been settlement...' is odd, the 2nd half doesn't follow well from the 1st. Is this continuous settlement? Could we have a paragraph or even 2 in the summary entirely on the history of Aberdeen? Maybe saying how relatively important a city it was before oil was found.
Are the Britain in Bloom awards really worthy of a mention in the lead section?
Is Aberdeen really sturdy? Or does it just look sturdy?
'various different people' - do you mean this? or 'peoples'? in the 1st case this is obvious so can be cut, in the 2nd why not say which peoples?
Can we have more about 'Bon Accord'? Why do you need a secret phrase to lay seige to a castle?
'had all been removed by 1770.' sounds better to me
'comprising of'?
'and by 1805 George Street, King Street and Union Street opening.'? do you mean opened? why are these streets noteworthy?
'a fine granite arch' NPOV? or is this granite that isn't coarse?
'second largest granite building in the world.' citation? what is the largest? in fact there aren't any citations in this or the religion section.
thanks for taking a look at this article. I have added a copyedit tag to the page (my English isn't the best :P ) I haven't had time to make any changes yet but after the weekend I will put the suggestions for the first few paragraphs into place. I have also shared these suggestions with other people working on the article so they will prove invaluable. Bobbacon15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a lot of one sentence paragraphs in some of the lower sections of the article ie Transport, Politics and Sport. Would it be possible to maybe expand some of these, or knit these one sentence paragraphs together? To give one example: "There are five major roads in and out of the city the A90, A96, A93, A92 and the A947." maybe you could say what directions they head in, which places they connect to Aberdeen to etc, just to give that little bit more information. Globaltraveller19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, your suggestions have been implemented with one-sentence paragraphs moved to put them in single paragraphs knitted together and extra information added to each of the three sections mentioned. Further information for transport with directions have also been added. Do you have any other suggestions I can implement? Bobbacon12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried on and read the rest of the article. Personally I think that this is a really good article (and much improved from 3 weeks ago) but it still needs work before it is ready for FA on the copyediting/brilliant prose side
Some more specific points (apologies if you have already changed any of these - I was reading yesterday's version):
Use of terms like recent, recently, lately, today - if possible can these be written to use terms like 'in the early 21st century', 'as of 2007' or even missed out altogether. How does the reader know when that bit of text was written?
'but the city ranks only a poor fourth in Scotland for shopping' - citation? why poor fourth?
majour?
Is the first paragraph in the education section important? If Aberdeen has 2 universities then you would expect more students in the area than nationally. Also can the word 'Educationally' be dropped?
'In 2001 it UK census records'?
Don't start a new paragraph with 'it'
'which have 49% of residences'? do you mean 'which comprise'?
Can the Performing arts section be rewritten so there isn't so much information in brackets and the Lemon Tree link be put at the 1st mention of this venue.
'For those looking for a less flower orientated experience then Hazlehead Park is the place to go' - this is straight out of a guidebook. Rewrite. Some references in this paragraph wouldn't go amiss either.
Why does the Doric Festival get a direct link in the text? Can this not go in external links?
Thanks for your suggestions, I have been taking a bit of wikibreak right now which is why I have taken time to get back to you. I will be integrating your suggestions soon- I have found that after working on an article for some time I start to read what I think is there as opposed to what is there and I stop noticing the small problems; so I am taking an Aberdeen break so I can look at it with fresh eyes again! Bobbacon15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the first peer review on 21/02/2007, a lot has been changed particulalry the formatting, style and prose has been vastly improved. As with any article the eventual aim is FA status, I think the current B status could be improved. Thanks, Bobbacon09:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what the community feels this article is lacking, what needs to be improved, and any and all other comments. I would like to work on this article to help elevate it to FA status, but need an idea of the improvments i should work on. - DTGardner03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AndyZ for this bot, with all the backlog I wasn't sure anyone would get to this article, i'll take a good look at the suggestions and apply them to the page, once again thanks! - DTGardner14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken this article as far as I know and have referenced it as best I can: I'm looking to be able to take it to GA standard. Mk3severo02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking so much for a peer review, as so much as a shave and a hair cut. Is everything listed in here encyclopedic in nature? Any legit reason people would complain if this was centred out as in the press? -- Zanimum18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking so much for a peer review, as so much as a shave and a hair cut. Is everything listed in here encyclopedic in nature? Any legit reason people would complain if this was centred out as in the press? -- Zanimum18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be made clear in the article when the origin of the term "Helicopter parent" is being discussed, and the origins of the actual phenomenon itself. Also, I don't understand the reason for the subheading explanations? Is this referring to explaining the rise of the phenomenon itself? The article needs a lot more inline citations. Otherwise it could easily be accused of POV problems, or original research. The term, and the phenomenon, are only discussed in an American context. Is this because it's American only, or is the article not comprehensive? - Shuddatalk00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking so much for a peer review, as so much as a shave and a hair cut. Is everything listed in here encyclopedic in nature? Any legit reason people would complain if this was centred out as in the press? -- Zanimum18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saved a stub from deletion last month, and I've - with some help - got it to GA status. Since then, I have expanded and referenced it further, even finding a book mention. I'd like to see if I can spruce it up a little more, and would like additional input. I'm not sure if there's enough information available on defunct feminist indie record labels to get it to FA, but that's the dream. Even if not, I would like it to be as good as it can be, so thoughts, suggestions and comment are welcome. Thanks. Proto►13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add the corresponding infobox of recording labels ({{infobox record label}}) at the top of the article.
Reviews should be split out of the lead and the "Background" section to a new "Reception" section.
Split information about the band becoming defunct from the "Background" section to a new section with additional information from here.
References 5 and 25 needs to go right after the text, without an external space. References 14, 15, 16, 17, 13 need to go after the punctuation mark.
...now defunct > ...which became defunct in 2004.
Be more specific in the "Artists formerly on Mr. Lady" section references, rather than providing the band's website itself. Also, I suggest moving the section to Artists formerly on Mr. Lady and adding that as a "main" article for the "Artists and releases" section in order to avoid the article becoming too listy.
The two formed Mr. Lady to make women's music and videos accessible and affordable - Duplication of the previous sentence.
Copyediting related:
In March, 2001 - Remove comma.
...by women.". - Remove the second period.
...a record company With - Remove capitalization.
...records (along with - Remove bracket.
Kaia Wilson released a statment confirming this in June 1999, stating - Replace "stating" with a colon. "...statment" > "...statement".
Formally backing the festival's trans-exclusion policy led to protests and boycotts aimed towards Mr. Lady acts, and Wilson and The Butchies in particular, from groups such as Camp Trans, who disagreed with Mr. Lady's stance and felt that the group and the label exploited transgendered images - Split this to two sentences starting with "Wilson and The Butchies". "...who" > "...have". "...the label" > "...label".
I have further copyediting suggestions, but I strongly advice requesting a different editor with a strategic distance to pass through the article to check for mistakes (I'd be happy to do so if you would like me to). Thanks. Michaelas10(Talk)16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The automated suggestions aren't much help (it wants to fix contractions from inside quotes, and that's about it). The copyedits are done, dates are fixed, Quails website removed, It would be great if you could pass over it, Michael, thanks - a couplde of the chnages you suggested I know I've missed. The citation templates are a nightmare to put in, so I have not used them (use is neither reccomended for or against on Wikipedia:Citation templates). Artists formerly on Mr. Lady would not be a suitable article for Wikipedia. I will expand this out later with a little text on each band, to make it a paragraph rather than a list. Proto►19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten pretty good at the {{cite}} templates. While they're neither recommended nor discouraged, they do ensure the cites are done in the proper way. I'm not saying the ones on here are improper, btw! :) But if you'd like, I can do that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well referenced, however please include the following after every one: (accessed 2007-02-03), or whatever the date is.
The external links section has built up in multitude, however an asterisk (*, press Ctrl+8) should be placed before each one.
Desperately needs expansion!
The Indonesian and Australian coats of arms do not need to be there. Instead, try a picture of the people involved, such as the Attorney General of Australia, Phillip Ruddock.
I'm hoping to get Wine to GA/FA status, which I feel is important for the WP:WINE and Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate any feedback as to what the article is missing, what should be improved, and and any other comments. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs►09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, some suggestions:
Summary of sections needed. Some sections are simply too long
ToC is too heavy, reduce the number of sections
=By wine style= is too detailed. List only the popular ones here.
More inline references
How is wine produced? An important section is missing. It should be right on top.
Tesco is the biggest retailer in the UK and the 3rd largest in the world - It's come under a lot of controversy recently, and the article could be in better shape - I'd much appreciate some input on what could be done to help improve it. Many thanks Benbread23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Many uncited statements.
Controversy section just a big list. In my opinion there should be an article on criticisms on Tesco and I suggest redirecting Tescopoly there. Further the new article should be in prose, not just bullet points.
Clubcard grossly under-described. The consensus is that Clubcard was one of, if not the most important factors in the company's recent success.
"Facts and figures" is a strange section. Is the rest of the article not facts and figures?
Intro should follow WP:LEAD.
Loads of single sentence paragraphs. This really hurts the flow of the article.
If this was ever to go for FA it would need major overhaul. Specifically the fact that it's only about ⅓ prose (⅓ tables etc and ⅓ lists). For example the acquisition timeline could be converted to prose and each one explained in context. Mark8308:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the featured article checklist, I believe that this article meets most of the requirements. But what do peer reviewers think? Can anything this short be featured quality? If not, why not? Anyway, let's go through the checklist.
Well written? Probably not great, but I hope I can fix improve it in time.
Comprehensive? Exhaustive on the subject, to the best of my knowledge.
Factually accurate? So far as I can tell.
Neutral? I expect so.
Stable? No ongoing edit wars.
MoS-compliant? It was split into short sections and a lead created to meet MoS-requirements. It can easily be unsectioned again if that's preferable.
Images? No, it doesn't have any images, but that's not something that's easy to remedy. I could create a map of places in the text if some sort of illustration is a must-have.
Appropriate length? It's fairly exhaustive, based on the references I have and the pointers to source material at the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England, so it's hard to see how it can be anything other than the appropriate length.
I think presence of images is required for GA status, so perhaps you ought to try finding one. Is there nothing from the period (ruins/metalwork?) that can be used as illustrations? A map would be great if you can draw one, maybe a family tree? DrKiernan16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, an image isn't required, but one should be added "where possible". I've added a contemporary coin; none from the subject's reign are known, but (original research warning) they would almost certainly have been identical on the obverse side shown. Northumbrian coins, unlike Mercian ones, don't show images of rulers. A family tree are not possible: as the article says, his ancestry is unknown. Map? Too much effort really. I don't care for image stuff, and nobody else seems to be interested. Angus McLellan(Talk)18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking further (and searching for "Moll" rather than variants of "Æthelwald"), this coin is indeed the same style as those known from this reign. I'll update the caption accordingly. Angus McLellan(Talk)19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review the biographical articles at WP:FA under history. This article is IMO much too brief to pass WP:FAC - length is not a strict criteria but there must be more historiography available at least if not direct references to his life. Give us more context if necessary. Kaisershatner15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am User:4dhayman and I started this article under the name "artificial bladder". I know this article is very far from FA status, but I'd like some input on how I may develop this article further. I am relatively new as a user, but please don't respond to my request with derision.
How long were the teams working on the bladder technique before they announced its success? Who was involved? Does the procedure section refer to the dog team or the later teams? What kind of risks are there involved? Do the new bladders have the same function as a natural bladder? (ie. no readsorption side effects) Hope this helps, it's a nice little article. If you significantly expand it within five days, you could put it up for WP:DYK and it could go on the front page! -Malkinann06:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
This is a second submission of this article for Peer Review. I did my best to follow all earlier suggestions and obtained this article to be accepted as Good Article. Now it's time for a step forward, i.e. reaching a Featured Article status for this article. Please look at it and let me know your opinions and suggestions to improve it.
Ensure references comply with WP:CITE, in short, don't have spaces between the [ref] and the text, and try to put the [ref] after punctuation (e.g. move ref [6] to the other side of the comma)
By this I mean when you refer to, say, "2002–03", you can wikilink that as 2002–03
I am doing this for all seasons for which a Wikipedia article exists (I even created by myself a couple of them). --Angelo18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History section needs to be sub-paged - see Arsenal F.C. for guidance - then in the main article perhaps six or seven large paragraphs can be used.
Squad needs update - it says "as of January 31, 2007", we're now June.
Sounds like a good idea, it's always brought up at WP:FAC and, again, checking out featured articles such as Arsenal F.C. you'll find, again, that a both a subpage was created with a specified set of criteria applied for players inclusion.
Thanks for your suggestions. As you can see, the issues I already fixed have been marked with a tick. Some of your suggestions instead deserve to be discussed to find a common solution, and others will be fixed as soon as possible. --Angelo21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Structurally everything seems sound, and it looks like the Rambling Man has picked up most things. Before going to FAC it could do with a light copyedit from a native English speaker. I'll run through it when I get the chance, and bring up any further issues as I do so. Oldelpaso22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you wait for a couple of weeks? Just because I am supposed next week to go in Florence at the National Library to have a look at a few very reliable sources for the club foundation. --Angelo22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd love to hear comment from people who actually know about this topic, even just general comments from readers who are new to the topic would be helpful. I'd like to get it to GA and then FA. Although I have covered all the important areas, I have a number of good references that have not yet been used, and there is still some more info that could go in, but I feel that this is a good time to get a review. (please note I'm seeking to move this article to Indonesian National Revolution per the talk page - the current title is fundamentally flawed and too narrow - read the article and you will understand!). --Merbabu12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know if it would fail FAC based on this, but I think the article could use some more pictures. One picture for an article that long is definitely not enough. --JerryOrr12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jerry - you are correct, and i will look into it - but it's quite hard to get free pictures. The only other two pictures that are free on wikipedia are from that exact period sub-section - ie, Battle of Surabaya. But I have some maps that someone has offered to re-create and post. Perhaps that will help.--Merbabu12:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My absolute favourite band in the world. With their second album coming out next week I think they deserve a better article than this. Buc10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, referencing is needed. Start by converting the four external jumps within the article and start mining the external links for various news articles. Wiki-newbie12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of nominating this article as a GA, but since it is larger than 25k I'm putting it through peer review first. I'm a little concerned with citation, since there is no notes section. Perhaps it needs to be broken down into some smaller articles too. I'm specifically looking for opinion and help to get this article a GA (or better) status. --Davidkazuhiro10:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like suggestions to improve this article. Someone has placed a note on the top saying it isn't written in an encyclopaedic tone. I disagree somewhat with the comment, but think it might be a bit too wordy.--Bookworm85715836721:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article suffers from a somewhat confusing lack of context as it assumes that the reader already knows who Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia was and what happened to her. I think these things should be briefly explained in a proper lead section. Also, there are some weasel phrases in the article, such as "is said by some people to have been..." and "Critics say that...", these statements seem to be referenced but they need specificity. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sample currently used doesn't qualify as fair use because it is 30 secs. Per Wikipedia:Music samples, since the song is 291 seconds, only 10% of a song can be used (30 secs is the maximum if it's a longer song), which would be 29 secs. LuciferMorgan21:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When he was tearing through "Postmortem" and "Angel of Death," I was waiting for him to go from his baritone growl to that air raid siren shriek, but it didn't happen." LuciferMorgan19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article I believe is very, very good, but I wanted to get the opinions on the article by other users, hence the reason why I removed it from Feature Article Candidate. Main things I'd like to get comments on include:
Opening section of article (Season Review)
Whether it goes in-depth into the subject matter or whether more detail is needed.
Missing information that could be inserted.
Detail that isn't really relevant to the subject matter.
Tables
Is their any mistakes that need to be removed.
Pictures
Are their some pictures that aren't exactly needed in the article.
The opening section could do with a comment (with reference, of course) about how the season was viewed (e.g. exciting, controversial etc.)
The article needs to be copy-edited, to check for spelling and grammatical errors (e.g. "Renault's Giancarlo Fisichella race in wet track during Chinese Grand Prix"), and links (e.g. "Grand Chelem" links to a list of F1 records, and not to the specific section.)
Some parts of the text are marked as needing citations.
The image of Schumacher should stay as it captures a pivotal moment of the season, but the other two could be replaced with better ones.
A very quick first thought, I'm a bit suspicious of the overlap between the 'Background' and the 'Team changes' and 'Driver changes' sections. The latter probably first appeared when the season was some way off, and were a useful way of noting upcoming changes, but should probably now be merged into either the background to the season or the season review as appropriate. 4u1e13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody will probably produce a list of automated peer review comments for this article at some point - they can be a bit difficult to get your head round, but I have found them very useful in the past. Make use of them! 4u1e13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Featured Article status, the writing will need a lot of work. It's quite 'jumpy' - the logical flow of concepts and ideas needs more work. Try reading each sentence as if you knew nothing about the topic and considering whether it makes sense in its own right and whether it follows on logically from what goes before. Even better, get someone who knows nothing about F1 to read it and tell you whether they can follow it. This is a really difficult one to get right, and probably means getting lots of people to look at it.4u1e14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be a very sound article, and anything I highlight is likely to be more of a niggle than a full-on complaint.
Is there not an appropriate picture of her available?
"Parents George & Annie (née Millward) Stanley" - change the ampersand (&) to an "and". This also needs doing in the caption of the picture in the section "Yoko". Changed.
I find the first paragraph in "The Stanley Family" a little broken-up and confusing. Done
I think "Career" could be better written - the tone isn't quite hitting the nail on the head.
"—and running "as fast as my legs could carry me"." - for one, I'm not sure the punctuation is perfect here. Secondly, it might make more sense if you changed the quote to "as fast as [her] legs could carry [her].", but that's purely a matter of personal preference. Done
"...in the smallest bedroom above the front door.[13][12]" - I'd change it so the references were in numerical order.Same goes for "...which was around the corner from Mendips.[26][15]".Done
"Mimi (in typical fashion) said..." - I'm not sure if the tone's quite right here.It doesn't bother me too much, but folks at FAC might pick up on it. Done
I advise assimilating the song sample into the bulk of the text somewhere. It looks anachronistic and out of place at the end. Done
The main things to consider are these: give it a quick copy-edit. It's in good shape but could probably do with a shakedown; try printing it out and reading it through with red pen in hand. Some of the sentences don't flow onto each other quite right, and this might help rectify that. The other thing I think might need some help is the chronological flow. Simply illustrating when things happened might be the easiest way to do this - for instance, putting years in brackets after paragraph headers. For instance, "John (1940-1956)" or whatever. Again, this is a matter of personal preference and not a must. I hope some of these pointers have helped; good luck! Seegoon20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the lead. You article is a biography of Mimi Smith; not of her husband or Lennon. In the lead you speak more about them than for Mimi Smith. And why is her husband's name bolded? Done
Seegon is right about the photo. The infobox would be nicer, if you could add one.
Again in the lead, you do not mentio dates of birth and death. Done
Sometimes the prose gets choppy. See, for instance, the first (and the last one as well) paragraph in "The Stanley Family".
The two last stubby paragraphs of "Marriage and 'Mendips'" look to me seamlessly connected with the rest of it.
"George owned half of the Smiths' family farm house, called 'The Cottage', which was around the corner from Mendips.[26][15]" Wouldn't be better like that: "George owned half of the Smiths' family farm house, called 'The Cottage', which was around the corner from Mendips.[15][26]" Done. There are also other similar cases throughout the article.
IMO "Song Sample" section is irrelevant to the biography. I agree with Seegoon: incorporate the sample itself somewhere in the rest of the article. Done
Congrats on the GA and I agree that aiming for FA on this article is eminently sensible. It's a relatively short article and is a nice one to tackle before trying again with the longer articles like Paul McCartney.
I too think it needs a copyedit from a really top notch editor. I'm not one of those but I'll certainly have a look and tweak what I can.
The lead is particularly weak. It doesn't appear to be very well structured at all. Try and group related information into paragraphs, keep the message on target, and summarise the article. Again, I'll have a play with this but I can't promise I'll improve it much :) --kingboyk13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank all three of you lovely people for spending time going through Mimi's underwear :)) As you all wrote, it needs a good look-through for dodgy passages/sentences, and a good scrub with a soft brush. I thank you again. (Mimi Smith an FA? That would certainly put the icing on a very big cake... :) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde16:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been rated GA for a long time & has had more information added since. I would welcome any comments which could help improve it in the hope of reaching FA status, and feel that the text, images and general structure would benefit from further editing.— Rodtalk10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thank you for the automated review. Apart from putting " " between numbers & units + removing a "The" from a section head (which I have since done) I believe all the suggestions are already met. Specifically:
I believe the lead does comply with the recommendations at WP:LEAD
Months and days of the week are not linked and centuries are
The image top right (of Cheddar Gorge) is PD
Instead of an infobox the article has a Geobox for protected areas which provides more information than the similar infobox but in a machine readable form (This is new & the automated process may not yet "recognise" this)
I can't find any "redundancies" or vague terms
Footnotes are located immediately after punctuation marks
Thanks for the feedback. I've added the geobox to my list of infoboxes (which now includes a grand total of three keywords..); I made it a point on my to-do list to increase my list of infoboxes but I keep forgetting to look through WP:IB. The image was missed due to (more detail) as I had the code search for image:, which I'm changing right now. The footnote spacing thing must've been an error, as when I checked it now it no longer appears. The lead was miscounted for because one of the paragraphs started with 200 (its not bad style or anything, I just set it up to search for uppercase letters). When I have time (probably this weekend), I'll give the article a more thorough (manual) look. Thanks, AZt00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph, "roughly analogous" is a bit unclear in terms of word choice
The second paragraph (hover over underlined stuff w/ cursor):
200 km² of the Mendips are an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a designation which gives the area the same level of protection as a national park. The Mendip Hills AONB Service and visitor centre is at the Charterhouse Centre near Blagdon. The Mendips are home to a wide range of outdoor sports and leisure activities.
The third paragraph:
The hills are largely carboniferous limestone which is actively quarried at several sites. This particular geology also makes it a national centre for caving and cave diving. In addition to climbing and abseiling, the area is a centre for Hillwalking and those interested in natural history.
Several explanation for the name Typo
The dot locator for the map is appearing outside of the map on my screen.
The prose in the top half of the article is a lot stronger than that of the bottom half, so try to focus more attention on the last few sections:
The particular geology, with large areas of limestone worn away by water makes it a national centre for caving, although some of the caves have been known about since the establishment of the Mendip lead mining industry in Roman times, many have only been discovered or explored in the 20th century.[22] The caves which are easily accessible to the public are at Cheddar Gorge and Caves and Wookey Hole, but the vast majority of the caves require specialist equipment and knowledge. The active Mendip Caving Group organises trips and continues to discover new caverns.
More errors fall in the next paragraphs, like " The first successful cave dive in Britain, was achieved" (comma unnecessary).
Typo in footnote #14.
Some more general notes, some of the 1-senetence paragraphs should be merged or expanded, since such short paragraphs are generally looked down upon.
Response Andy thank you for all these comments which I've edited along with some of the more general suggestions you've made about short sentances & comma misuse. I've removed the logo of the Mendip Society to avoid potential fair use issues. Any further comments would be useful as I'd like to put this up as a FA candidate soon.— Rodtalk12:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Had a quick look at the article and spotted a few things. Hopefully I will have time for a closer look in the next couple of days.
Karst is linked to in the introduction however does not seem to be mentioned in the Geology section. If its important enough for the lead it should be elaborated on later, in my opinion.
A part of the area, totalling approximately 200 km² are an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) - From the Lead: This doesn't read very well.
At the end of the second Lead paragraph sports and leisure are mentioned. The third paragraph goes back to geology (which is first introduced in the first paragraph) and then back to sports and leisure activities. Is there a more logical way of organising this information?
The Ecology section has 4 paragraphs without any references, it would be great to see atleast one per paragraph (even if it is the same one!).
Echoing AndyZ's comments the Mendips in the arts section has 4 rather short paragraphs which should be merged/expanded.
This article has already been reviewed once before (see Archive1), but I feel that since that time the article has gone under substantial changes. Currently the article is GA, and I would like to renominate it for FAC, so any advice or comments that you give would be much appreciated. OSX06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much exhausted all "reasonable" online sources, added "The Book" on US Patterns into the article for the required print source to verify the online sources and much of the facts in the article, and did a minor cleanup of sorts. Given there is so little info about the coin, and short of undertaking FOIA requests to the US Mint and the United States Treasury and buying another book (which is OOP and aquiring one is a "major" financial undertaking), is there anything else I could do to make it better or am I pretty much "done?" -293.xx.xxx.xx06:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently close to becoming a GA, but I would like some constructive comments on how to get this article to FA status. Some specifics:
Is there enough in the production section? I got as much useful notable information out of the DVD commentary as I could, and since this episode is from 1993, there isn't a lot on the internet.
Is the review section too cluttered/messy?
Is the the Cultural references section too cluttered/messy/needed?
How is the general synopsis? Too short, long, too specific or not specific enough?
If you're going for FA, you might get in trouble for having too many fair use images to illustrate the article. Each image should be used for "identification and critical commentary", Image:A Thousand Monkeys.png and Image:9f15.jpg are there just to illustrate the article.
I wouldn't quote IMDB and TV.com ratings - they are highly subjective self-self-selecting surveys and don't really indicate much.
Yes, I tink the "Reception" section might be a bit too crowded, try splitting it into paragraphs.
The "Production", "Cultural References" and "Reception" sections don't really flow naturally - they are like collections of disjoint bullet points without actually using the *s. I'm not sure how this can be improved myself, perhaps try looking at similar sections of articles in the "Media" section of WP:FA to see what tends to be acceptable. (Though I did not find any individual episodes there, so there probably isn't as much information to put in these sections as in other FA articles.)
Hello PR reviewers, and thank you for taking the time to review this article. I rewrote it based on Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, a FA written by Clyde Miller and Deckiller. I've asked them to help me out on this one too, since they are more experienced. I'm trying to get it to GA, then FA if possible, but I'd like some suggestions on how to improve it. I'd appreciate any comments or tips. Thanks again! · AndonicOTalk22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
saikano...saikano is..hoow can i put it...?...specal type of anime. the emotional aspect of this is depressing.this anime is depressing. i cryed all through this anime. there was things unforseen in it.
i just love this anime. it a sci-fi soap opara like anime. its been months and i am still depressed. it holds on to you and wont let go. it is currently ranked the best anime ever for good reason.I loved it!--Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section tells absolutely nothing about the plot - even one or two sentences would be good. The 'critical reviews' section needs to be in prose, rather than a table. The comma is rather over used. As a whole, the article desperately needs citations, especially the "speculation about possible foes." The production section should be more than a list of names. (Who funded it, if there were any controversies in production, etc.) Sometimes, the tone is a little unencyclopaedic. -Malkinann06:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
saikano starts out in winter as shuji talks about his girlfriend in the past tense. He finds her bag picks up the Animal Club jurnal and read's it. then he has a flashback. now i am 95% positive this took place in episode 12 because he walk did the same thing. Then the story begains...its the summer time with shuji & chise walking up hell hill.--Lolicon304391017:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"has a bitter tongue" - uncommon metaphor in English, rephrase
Image:Saiweapon.JPG says it is public domain. Highly unlikely, considering it seems to be a screenshot.
The plot section only describes the set-up, not the actual plot. I can't tell for sure (another issue), but I wouldn't be surprised if all this - the love declaration, the war, and the conversion of Chise into a weapon - happened in the first episode. What happens in the rest of the series?
The Characters section seems to need another spoiler warning
The Manga section only talks about the plot, rather than publication details. It also says it follows the anime plot - but you haven't given us much of the anime plot.
The Soundtrack section is just a bunch of words to me. Are they song titles? How about a translation?
Put some text in the reviews section, rather than the final grade. What did the reviewers actually like and dislike?
Trivia sections are usually looked down upon in featured article candidacies; try to work those items into the main text instead
At the beginning of the year I asked for a peer review on this (archive) and I believe that most of the issues have been addressed. I haven't had much time since then to work on this but figured that others would help address issues over the last year. I feel the article is ready for another peer review and then hopefully for the featured article nomination process. ----Rodzilla (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly looks much better than when I passed it as GA; I'd say it has a shot for FA. Some things:
Source statements like "Serious Sam II's gameplay consists almost entirely of the player attempting to defeat hundreds of enemies at a time, and thus is relatively simple", "A prominent feature in the previous Serious Sam games was cooperative gameplay, in which multiple players could play the single-player campaign together. Serious Sam II focused on this game mode even more than its predecessors"
Reword some awkward sentences, for example "Player-controlled vehicles and turrets were introduced to the series in Serious Sam II, and examples include rocket launcher, machine gun, and laser turrets as well as hover bikes and hover saucers", instead, "SSII (or the game to avoid redundancy if needed) introduced player-controlled vehicles and turrets, allowing Sam to utilize rocket launchers as well as hover bikes"; "This is a significant change from the previous games in the series in which the story existed merely to transport the player from place to place in order to kill as many enemies as possible in the process, with the plot consisting merely of messages that the player could disregard without consequence."
Layout- I swapped around the sections (put development before reception) to conform with vg conventions. Also, consider adding a reviews table like {{VG Reviews}} to the Reception section; this allows you to spend more time in the body talking about complaints and praise rather than raw scores from individual sections (see Halo 3 for examples; usually only aggergate scores are mentioned in the main body.)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a GA at most.
Finetooth comments: This article has a couple of big problems and some smaller ones. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
I agree with whoever added the "too long" tag above the plot synopsis. I wonder also about the source of the synopsis. If this is your personal description of the plot, it might be regarded as personal research. It's doubtful that a professional reviewer would describe the plot in this much detail. Please see WP:NOR.
You'll have a hard time justifying the use of three fair-use images in this article. I see that one is flagged for deletion, and I doubt that more than one will survive scrutiny. Mr suggestion would be to use only the one in the infobox.
The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES for the recent changes to the guidelines.
I'd recommend deleting the word "unexpectedly" from the phrase, "before disappearing unexpectedly from the box-office charts". If you leave it in, it needs a source.
In the "Release and reception" section, it's not clear what the phrase "wide break" means. Does that mean the movie's rise or its fall in the charts?
The link to the Vincent Canby review is dead. You might substitute this one in the citation.
The Maltin citation includes an access date but no url. Should it have an url? If you are citing a book in print, the print version would have no access date.
I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn
Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.
"The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, during the recording process of which; guitarist Jim Root replaced Josh Brainard, which was the final line up change of the band." That sentence is rather clumsy- perhaps it would be better to say something like "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, before reaching the final lineup of _______________ during the album's recording."
"Since which the band have released a further 2 albums and are expected to release a 4th album in 2008." Perhaps name the albums, so as not to lean towards recent events? Also, perhaps "since which time" instead of "since which"?
More information about the pre-formation Slipknot would be good if it is available- it's currently just a list of names. What did they do? Could it be bulked out enough for its own subsection? At the moment, the freestanding paragraph looks a little out of place, especially as single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.
Grammatically, the sentence is a little odd (I'm not going to say it is wrong, as I probably don't understand semi-colons as well as I should) I would phrase it as "Early formations of a band were beginning to form as early as 1992 with the core band members, Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini and Paul Gray, enlisting the help of guitarists Donnie Steele and Quan "Meld" Nong." Also, repeating the word 'form' twice jarrs a tad.
"The band continued to develop their vision of what the band would be," Perhaps "The members continued to develop their vision of what the band would be,"?
"band Sipknot after" Why is that italicised?
"after their song"- after which song? Maybe "after their song of the same name"
"(which subsequently evolved in to (sic) which appears on their début album)" Song name in speech marks.
"until they thought the band was ready" Repetition ruins this line. Perhaps 'until their music was fully developed.'
"By this time the band had a lot"- By what time?
"to make a recording," I'd delink that, looks like over-linking to me.
"local studio, SR Audio with Sean McMahon." You need to close the parenthesis with a comma after 'Audio'
"April 4th Slipknot"- I'd add the year, and then link both the date and the year.
"to realise again" I'm British too, but this is an American topic, so the spelling should be American- 'realize'.
"released Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. on Halloween." More details about the release- date and year (on top of the fact you say it is Halloween) and label.
Is that considered the band's debut album, or an EP? Perhaps you could make that clear?
Why are all the references clumped at the end of the paragraph? Doing that kind of defeats the point of footnotes.
I've just noticed the complex heading hierarchy you are using. I would personally remove the sub-sub-sub headings- ('first recordings and live performances', 'more changes and growing popularity', etc) compare to other featured articles on similar topics (Slayer, Nightwish, Tool (band)...) and you'll see that most articles don't do that.
Actually, now that I have said that, I see that it would probably be best to rename the first history subsection to 'Early years (pre-1998)' so you can bulk that first lonely line into a paragraph and put that as the first paragraph in the section.
To give an idea about what those two above changes look like, I have implemented them in my sandbox if you want to take a look.
"being heard by the right people" That isn't NPOV. Say who these people are, not that they are 'the [adjective] people'.
"By the summer of 1997 Slipknot went back to the studio, they were constantly honing their craft and writing new material and they were writing music which required more vocal melody." Again, seems a little POV, plus, seasons vary by nationality. Try- "By mid-1997, Slipknot had returned to the studio having developed new material requiring more vocal melody." As that is still rather subjective, a reference is definitely needed.
"band Stone Sour, this" Link? Also, a full stop would be better than a comma.
"The gap on percussion was the filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts who was to become the first and only member to be fired from the band, again there was a spot free on percussion it was filled by Chris Fehn." Another clumsy sentence- try "The gap on percussion was th filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts, who subsequently became the first and only member to be fired from the band. He was replaced Chris Fehn." More details on the firing would be nice, too.
What does "attained numbers" mean? That's not a phrase I am familiar with.
Again, it would be better to put the citations after the facts, rather than at the end of the paragraphs.
Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, LaraLove did a copy-edit of the article and I have adjusted the article along with some of your recommendation's. I would like to see what you make of the rest of the article if you ever have time to finish your review. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.
"In July 2001, Q magazine named Slipknot as one of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time"." I would call the magazine Q instead of Q magazine, as that is the accepted title. Also, the magazine name should be in italics.
This may be a little rich coming from me (I overuse them) but you continually use commas in a way which I do not think is correct. For instance, this line really hits me- "The band had created a huge fan base and the expectations for their follow up album were great, Slipknot went back in to the studio in early 2001 to work on a new album." Why is that comma there? It seems to be two separate sentences- it should be treated as such, or perhaps just stick an 'and' in there. In any case, the sentence is a little vague.
"In the same year Slipknot released their second visual output with the released of their DVD Disasterpieces." Reference?
"2002 also saw the first serious musical projects outside of Slipknot." Make it clear that this means side projects of the members. As it reads now, you mean any serious musical project at all, whether related to Slipknot or not.
"their band Stone Sour" Link?
I'd lose the accents on 'début'. They don't seem to be needed in English- [8].
"Root, Taylor, and Gray also contributed to the album. In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing their second album Come What(ever) May. Jordison drummed for several bands while on tour including; Ministry (2006-2007) and Korn (2007). He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007. Later in the year Crahan revealed a new side project in the form of Dirty Little Rabbits." That whole section is horribly unreferenced.
"Slipknot are known for their often chaotic and energetic live shows" Reference?
""[are] not generally quotable on a family website"," According to whom?
"The band is known for its attention-grabbing image." Reference?
"The members wear matching uniform jumpsuits and homemade masks." Ditto.
"The masks have been subject of much criticism, generally thought of as a gimmick to try sell their product." Reference? If you are hoping to get this to featured article, everything is going to need to be well referenced.
"several band members" Repetition of this phrase needs to be dealt with.
Section title- "Band Members"- decap 'Members'.
References in regards to dates and numbers would be good.
Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have looked over review and here's what I've done/think.
Done
Done
Sourced
Done
Done
Done
Sourced
Sourced
Done
Done
Done
A lot of criticism comes from supposedly "true" metal fans. I can't be sure of what is considered a reliable source for this, I have added one from Urban Dictionary
Done
Done
Could you be more specific?
I have actually order two new books [9] and [10] on top of the one I already have [11]. Once I get both of these two books I intend to resource as much as possible. I was thinking of using a system similar to the one used on the U2#References article were they list the books and foot note each statement with a page number. Do you think this is a good system or do you know of a better one. Thansk again for your help. Rezter (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today I received my two new books and I have resourced the majority of the "pre-1998" section and a few misc sources throughout the article. The only thing I haven't addressed on your list is "References in regards to dates and numbers would be good." which I don't completely understand so could you be more specific please? Rezter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urban dictionary is not a good source, at all- I'd remove that. I like that system of citing books in footnotes. Sorry about the number and dates thing- I was working down the article, and so it was obvious to me (at the time) that I was referring to the discography section. Sorry about that, I was probably rushing to finish. In any case, I was referring to the release dates and the sales figures in the discography section. I'll have a quick glance over the article now. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very first paragraph in the article is a single line- why not just make that part of the next paragraph?
Sorry- I have just realised that the number of albums sold (or, at least, the certifications) are cited.
I wouldn't bold the awards they have won- I would just tack "(winner)" on the end.
Yeah, just to repeat now I have seen it in the context of the article, the new reference system looks great.
Great to see the number of footnotes in use, as well as the fact that they cite the specific fact rather than the paragraph- the article is now looking great, but I haven't reread the prose yet.
Sorry, I've just realised I misinterpreted my own comment too- no wonder you did! By 'dates and numbers', I meant the dates which the members were part of the band, and the numbers which the members have on their jumpsuits.
Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.
Some additions I feel should be made include:
Did they have any musical influences?
Why was Welts fired?
When did they sign to Roadrunner Records?
The article states "mixed reviews", but does not include any negative reviews. Rather than two good reviews, one positive, one negative.
Has there been any controversy with any of their songs or performances?
References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.
If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. Lara❤Love21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help with this article.
I could try find sources which state the artist's musical influences if you think that it will make the article better. Do you maybe have an example of an article that has this so I could have more of an idea of format and structure.
I have added why Welts was fired.
I'm having trouble finding out the exact date that they signed to Roadrunner records.
I have removed the "mixed reviews" section as most reviews are positive.
The only incident I have heard of is this: [12] personally I don't think it's worth mentioning as that is the only story I have heard of.
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, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been heavily rewritten, expanded, and sourced by User:Ndsg. It has passed GA, and now we're planning on moving it up to FA. It has undergone a few changes, such as the movement of most of the spelling details to a new page, and the according section has been rewritten summary-style. We would appreciate any more advice from other editors about the article's quality, and how it can be improved. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One quick comment on organization. I would put section Description behind section Compounds as words -- or maybe combine the two behind section History. Seems like Texts and Language learning should come later, especially since they introduce concepts (like T1, T3) which aren't explained except in Description. Overall the article looks pretty good, though. Technical details are treated pretty well, which is important. -- bcasterline • talk19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes more logical sense to me. I still think Compounds as words could be combined with Description since it is a discription, but it's not a crucial point. -- bcasterline • talk02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as more of a principle than a trait, since word compounding could theoretically be removed and the text would remain readable. It's also a bit more abstract than spelling conventions, since it concerns the morphemic boundaries in words, which have been historically debated in Chinese. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All elements of this article have been updated, expanded, cited, and improved, so the whole article is proposed for review. It may even qualify for Good Article status.--Lexein14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, don't, doesn't, can't.
This article needs a lot of work. There needs to be a "Development" section describing how the movie was made. There also needs to be a "Reception" section detailing both critical reactions, from notable critics, as well as box office success, home video sales, and any awards or nominations. The "Quotes" section and the "Trivia" section need to go. The "Plot" section needs significant clean up. Needs proper paragraph structure and should not be overly detailed. There should also be a detailed cast section. It appears there is already a massive todo list on the talk page simply to get up to "start class". Good Article status and even B-class are way better than this. Jay3218323:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, everyone. Looks like you've got your work cut out for you. Good luck finding any production information. Its reception was thoroughly summed up in the intro. The movie was negatively reviewed as lacking plot, so perhaps the extant plot section should simply be deleted. There are plenty of movie entries which do not satisfy the boilerplate massive todo list --Lexein05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24 is a little lacking in detail. Is that a book? Or just something he said at the festival? Can we even reference that?
It's something he said at the modern drummer festival. The video is on Youtube and since it would breach copyright i don't know how to add more detail.
Breach of what copyright? If the video was taken by the uploader, then we can cite it as a source (as long as we are certain it is genuine, I think it is reasonable to believe it is) if it was ripped from a documentary, live stream or DVD or something, we can cite that. Alternatively, have you taken a look on the Internet archives for the relevant concert? J Milburn12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to slip between calling the drum set TAMA and Tama- I'm no drummer, so I am not sure how correct that is.
The last paragraph of 'Return to Slayer', the second set of quotation marks are not closed.
The line "Apocalyptica Lombardo enjoyed playing a duo – and asked if Lombardo would like to record a song for their next album." doesn't seem to make much sense, and that paragraph repeats 'Lombardo' a lot, too.
The first paragraph is, in my opinion, slightly confusing and doesn't flow well. It should state why Lombardo is notable; I recommend moving the contents of the second para up to the first, and perhaps removing the show-and-tell sentence. Your call though.
I thought Origin was meant for bands only? Noting his origin and birthplace is a little ambiguious. Also, the flags aren't really required.
Grade school is a little inspecific (I note that the grade in which he brought in his drums in mentioned above though). You may want to replace it with an age or something; grades are usually country-specific.
"100,000 years" -> "100,000 Years". "Talk of the town" is quite colliqual as well. "Word of Lombardo's ability spread" sounds a little more formal.
"This inspired his musical interest in drums, which resulted in him joining the school band playing the marching drum, although he thought the marching drum was "not for him"." Seems like a run-on sentence to me. "Musical" in this context seems redundant.
... by listening to the record repeatedly and word of Lombardo's ability spread for being able to perform the drum solo. Due to his new found popularity, he was asked if he could play the song "Moby Dick" by Led Zeppelin." To me, this sounds awkward. Could be better phrased as "... by listening to the record repeatedly. Word soon spread of Lombardo's ability to perform the song's drum solo, and he was asked to perform Led Zeppelin's "Moby Dick". (Also, who asked him? School friend perhaps?)
"Due to him arriving home at 4:00AM, his parents threatened to put him in a military school." This is unclear; was it every night, or just the once? CloudNine13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The research and references are fine, but the writing style needs significant editing to bring it up to encyclopedic standard.
The article often bumps together parts A and C without mention of part B of the story.
"With the drumkit, Lombardo purchased his first record..." implies that he got a really bad deal trading in the kit at a pawn shop for one LP! This sentence should be rewritten. Did his father include the record along with the kit?
Moby Dick reference jumps from "was not familiar with the material" to "after doing so" (playing the song with mastery, I assume you meant). Need a transitional sentence.
"...parents threatened to put him in a military school." Did they withdraw the threat? Did he have to give up late night events until leaving home?
"As Slayer's line-up was complete..." Did the band already have everyone but a drummer? The article jumps from King's own guitar collection, presumably at his home, to a full band taking the show on the road.
Hoglan appears and promptly disappears from the article. Is he really relevant?
Lombardo's wife appears without a mention of when they were married.
"Grip" section jumps from appropriate past tense into present tense discussion of events in the past.
He had to miss the 2005 Fantomas tour. Did he ever tour with them?
Should change to "Ten years after departing from Slayer..." and include the name of the manager.
The Christy quote should either cite the exact words for "blown away," or the summary should be rewritten to a less cliche term.Finnish should be capitalized.
Thanks for the comments. I agree with you on the poorly written part in some places and alot of sentences start with Lombardo did...He then.. I'll see how i can fix this up and the other things that still remain. Appreciate the comments. M3tal H3ad11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very responsive to constructive criticism, and I see a lot of improvements in the article. Good job! One more minor point: when describing a purchase made in Los Angeles, you don't need to include "USD" - just "$1,100" is enough. Are you working on other articles? VisitorTalk16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Lombardo *insert verb here* has been a problem from the start and I'm slowly cutting them down. I recently re-wrote two articles, Silent Civilian and The Blackening (still needs a recording section and do-away with the "history") M3tal H3ad07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit of the entire article. However, the prose still needs attention and is the weakest component of the article as it stand. I recommend having another editor read and copyedit the page. The article in general seems ok, but I'm not too sure about the exensive use of reviews. Certainly there neds to be critical recognition of Lombardo's work, but since he's only a component of a complete group, single out sentences in reviews that mention him often seems like stretching the point. I'll try and offer more comments soon. WesleyDodds08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the point as regards the review, since it gives readers a perspective of Lombardo's work as a whole. I do agree the prose needs work though, but I can't think of anyone else who will copyedit the article further. LuciferMorgan09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought: could the reviews be better utilized in the "musical characteristics" section? As part of the biography they seem somewhat out-of-place. WesleyDodds09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make this article look well before FA nomination. What tips or advice should I have to mold this article into FA? This article has been peer reviewed before by the films committee. Real9602:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a lot of pictures. I suggest removing the posters of Foxx and Beyonce as well as Glover. Those don't seem to illustrate any particular point. Wiki-newbie10:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you ask the League of Copyeditors for assistance. There's a lot of trivial things in the main flow of things - like Will Smith's 'exclusive contract' with Paramount? How is this relevant to the film? -Malkinann10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
"Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
"Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.
I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.
My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we use the cite news template. In addition, I tried separating the links into two categories, but the links overlapped. Real9606:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on this page for a while, and just put it up. Theres a lot in there, but I'd like any feedback anyone has to offer. Briancua
A few comments
The lead is very short and just introduces the article rather than summarising it.
For look I think that the {{DedhamHistory}} should be moved to the first line and the population table turned horizontal and moved to the end of the article just before the references.
Some words need appriate wikilinking early in the article. Words that need linking are Turnpike, tip, Republican, Democratic, Knights of Columbus, High streets, Congressman, Protestant, Unitarian, straw bonnets, stagecoach, Heyday to wikt:heyday
There seems to be innapropriate capitalisation in places eg:all Massachusetts towns were Constitutionally required (don't hold me to this as my puncuation etc.. is not the best)
I have been working on this page for a while, and just put it up. Theres a lot in there, but I'd like any feedback anyone has to offer.Briancua01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons of Autumn Twilight was recently bumped to GA, and now I want to do the same with the whole trilogy. Suggestions on improvement of the entire article with the intent of a GA in mind are wanted. Also note that these articles have next to no professional reviews (as stated by the author) and those that exist are very hard to find. DoomsDay34900:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I owe you something for the effort you've put into the GA reviewing so far, so here goes. The auto review javascript program says:
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
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.”
Some ideas from me would be to thin down the characters section, the book images need fair use rationales, the references would benefit from {{cite web}} or other specific templates - add details to them too, like sourcing and last retrieved date - ref 2 especially. Can you convert the Inspirations section into a paragraph and lengthen the sentences - they seem a bit short. Prose is a bit choppy sometimes - can you make the plot a bit clearer too? Looking good though :) RHBTalk - Edits01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This copyediting of which you speak, I have heard the term but am not quite sure what it means. What is it, and how might I get it done? DoomsDay34902:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In trade for your humorous comment about Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow on the Main Page's talk page, DoomsDay, I'll add a few thoughts here as well. (I'm relatively new to WP, but hopefully they help!)
Introduction - Although much of the DL world is traveled in Chronicles and Legends, the two sets do not cover the whole of DragonLance. Also, the article title should only be bolded on its very first mention.
Plot - "Comes into play" sounds akward, as I associate it more with a sports team making a substition or a new plot point being introducted for the first time into a story. Perhaps another phrase should be used, such as "The focus shifts / changes / moves to ...". Also, a quotation mark is missing after Illusions and the wikilink for Dragonlance should hide "(weapon)" using a pipe symbol.
Inspiration - If you could find more information for this section, it would feel more like an "Inspiration" section than a "Trivia" section. The information you have so far though is very interesting.
I've already gotten to a few of these points. I'll fix around those that I haven't. (It's good to know I'm establishing connections XD) DoomsDay34903:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Like I said at Good Article Review, the article needs a "Critical reception" section. How was it recieved by the book critics? What did they say?LuciferMorgan18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, these books weren't very big in their time. Not many reviews. I can direct you to an author's post on the forums that says as much. DoomsDay34923:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, it has been alleged that she had intended to marry Edward, an engagement between them was even gossiped about in the papers, but historians assume that this is simply a case of misreporting."
Thanks for reading another one of my long articles! I've removed the above, the same sentence occured in Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, where I've now provided a reference to the newspaper which broke the story. The assumption of misreporting comes from Sarah Bradford's biography (reference given). DrKiernan08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Proposal" section needs cleaning up and turning into prose. Any critical reviews of the drama programs in question are welcomed, particularly if they comment on the portrayal of the man in question. I don't mind reading the articles, I'm just no good at giving feedback unless they're music related. Most editors complain about 1. a. which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose", but I'm ill equipped to comment on that criterion. [And I'm ill-equipped to write it! DrKiernan 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)] If you want 1. a. checked, politely ask Deckiller if he can give a peer review of the article as he may be able to help. LuciferMorgan01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've cleaned that up by changing the words so that they better match what H. C. G. Matthew has written in the reference given at the end of the paragraph. DrKiernan08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The official Royal Tour historian, Gustave Lanctot, stated: "When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence, the Statute of Westminster had assumed full reality: the King of Canada had come home." All quotes need citations. LuciferMorgan08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been busy! It's a lot of work to put together this many articles!
Yes, I'm not going to nominate this many articles at once again. It's far too much work! DrKiernan11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Here are my suggestions.[reply]
George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor) (14 December 1895 - 6 February 1952) was the King of Great Britain, Ireland, each of the British Dominions, and Emperor of India, from 11 December 1936. - from December 1936 to ?
I deliberately left that hanging because it is different for Ireland and India. Actually, I was never very satisfied with the way it was phrased. I have tried a new wording. DrKiernan08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would suggest that you expand the lead to cover his entire life.
The day was the anniversary of the death of his great grandfather, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort. - by the time we've gotten to this sentence, we've forgotten that we are talking about the day he was born - rework or remind us
Do we really need to know who all of his godparents were?
I didn’t put these in, they were there when I first came to the page. I guess they show the connections of the family. I have moved them to a footnote. DrKiernan08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite coming bottom of the class in the final examination, Albert progressed to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth in 1911. - awkwardly phrased first clause (unless this is an idiom of British English that I am unfamiliar with)
In 1920 he met Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the youngest daughter of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and set his sights on marrying her. - "set his sights" sounds colloquial
I think that is possible to build the births of their two children into the article rather than listing them as bullet points. Also, the birth of these children should also probably be mentioned more prominently in your Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon article.
Rising Indian nationalism made the welcome which the royal couple would have received likely to be muted at best, and a prolonged absence from Britain would have been undesirable in the tense period before World War II, without the strategic advantages of the North American tour which in the event was undertaken in 1939. - awkward last phrase
However, when the King and Queen greeted Chamberlain on his return from negotiating the Munich Agreement in 1938, they invited him to appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with them, which was an exceptional association of the monarchy with a politician. - "exceptional" is odd diction; also, explain further why this incident was so unusual and what it meant
The entire trip was a measure intended to placate the strong isolationist tendencies among the North American public vis-à-vis the developing tensions in Europe. - is "placate" the right word?
Although the aim of the tour was nevertheless mainly political, to shore up Atlantic support for Britain in any upcoming war, the King and Queen were enthusiastically received by the Canadian public and the fear that George would be unfavourably compared to his predecessor, Edward VIII, was dispelled. - awkwardly phrased
The trip demonstrated that as early as 1939 it was deemed appropriate for the novel doctrine of the discrete crowns of the Commonwealth Realms to be ostentatiously asserted. - what does this mean?
The "Honours" section seems ridiculously long to me, but perhaps this is standard in royal biographies?
Yes, I agree it is ridiculously long. It takes ages to download on a slow connection, we almost gave up on my mother's dial-up. I can't see anything this long on any other royal page. The Honours of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon are a separate article. So, I will try moving this section to a sub-page. DrKiernan08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some uncited statements that begin "Some say..."
Would you mind expanding on this point a little? I've used citation templates except when referring to a specific page in one of the references, where I've just used Authorname, p.No. Thanks, again. DrKiernan11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the notes have just the author and the page number and some of the notes (12, 13, 15, 28, 29, 31) have the entire citation. Why? Usually, as you know, one gives the entire citation first and then refers only to the author's name afterwards. Sometimes on wikipedia people eliminate the first complete citation, though - it's a wikipedia thing. Therefore, I could not tell if you were following the standard scholarly practice of fully citing the first appearance of a source or not - it was confusing. Is that clear? I feel like that was a convoluted explanation. Awadewit11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is absolutely clear. Notes 12,13,etc. are only cited once, and are slightly off topic, so I haven't put them into the references and give all details. As the others are in the references section, I chose not to duplicate the details in the notes section and just use Author, page (i.e.wikipedia style). In fact, the article was originally structured with full citations first and then just author afterwards but I then changed it for the sole reason of shortening the page slightly by removing duplicate material. Now, that isn't a very good reason so I'm quite happy to move it back to scholarly form now that I understand your comment. DrKiernan12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another nice article of yours. Some minor remarks:
From the lead: "Albert served in the navy during World War I, and after the war took on the usual round of public engagements." "As the heir presumptive Albert ascended the throne as George VI, the third monarch of the House of Windsor." So here he is "Albert", but then you say: "George VI was born at York Cottage", and "George VI's birthday (14 December 1895) was the anniversary of the death of his great...". I don't like this alternation of names. IMO it is inconsistent. I see this alternation continues in the next sections as well. Anyway, this may be my personal preference.
"He was baptised at St Mary Magdalene's Church near Sandringham three months later.[3]" I don't think this has to be a seperate paragraph. After all, it is stubby like that.
"However, Edward VIII chose to abdicate his crown to marry a divorcée; it was by reason of this unforeseeable abdication, unique in British history, that George VI came to the throne." is this necessary here? You said the same thing in the lead, and you will further analyse it in the next sections. It looks to me like a repetition.
"Neville Chamberlain lost the support of the British House of Commons and was replaced as Prime Minister by Winston Churchill." This phrase looks to me seamlessly connected with the rest of the paragraph.
"In 1950 India became a republic, within the Commonwealth, and George VI ceased to be King. India recognised George's new title as Head of the Commonwealth." Did he remain King of Pakistan?
Is the "See also" section necessary with just one link? Personally, I would get somehow rid of it (e.g. by incorporating its only link in the main text, if you regard it as necessary).--Yannismarou16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, not enough prose to call long. I would say the article, down to the ==Death== section is overall well-written and comprehensive. However, and as noted, the rest of the article needs a major clean-up. The 'quips' section is funny trivia, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia (except maybe sprinkled here and there or rolled-into a general 'public image and perception' section where the anecdotes are used as examples of such and such image of the Queen mum - read on). Also, kill the list in the ==Criticism== section, rename it to something more NPOV like ==Public perception and image== and add both the good and bad. Do that, and I think you have a good chance at FAC. --mav03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks. I've re-written the final sections. But they still need a little work (for example, I've noticed there's a comment which needs a citation). DrKiernan09:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticisms" and "Reported quips" need changing from their listiness into smooth, cohesive prose which tie the respective sections as their wholes. They need intros and then their main parts all tied together. LuciferMorgan01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It was said that her popularity was on account of her coming from a more common background than that of past Queens."
Unfortunately, I can't find that statement in my copy of Fraser (the book has gone through many editions and revisions, so I can't tell which one the editor who added that comment was using). Consequently, as we don't know who said what when, I've removed the sentence. DrKiernan10:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"..and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward."
Can you cite the fact that the Canadian and U.S. public were extremely enthusiastic please? Unless cited, someone can deem it original interpretation. LuciferMorgan02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The widowed queen also oversaw the restoration of the remote Castle of Mey on the Caithness coast of Scotland, which later became her favourite home."
"Before the marriage of Diana Spencer to Prince Charles, and after Diana's death, the Queen Mother, known for her charm and theatrical flair, was by far the most popular member of the British Royal Family."
On what are these opinions based? Polls? Can you cite these opinions please? namely as concerns her popularity and that she was known for her charm and theatrical flair. LuciferMorgan02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, her thwarting of the ambitions of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (albeit considerably less forthrightly than that of Queen Mary), and by her sheer endurance. In her later years, she became known for her longevity. Her birthdays became times of celebration and, as a popular figure, she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole."
"The Queen Mother's honours were read out at her funeral, held in the United Kingdom, as follows: "Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother, Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Lady of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Lady of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India, Grand Master and Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order upon whom had been conferred the Royal Victorian Chain, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, Relict of His Majesty King George the Sixth and Mother of Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness."
Can you citate the "Centenarian" subsection please, especially as concerns the Royal family expressing concern at her fall and the Queen Mother insisting on standing up? Thanks. LuciferMorgan02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although legally Edward could have married Mrs Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that if he rejected their advice that he forbear to marry Mrs Simpson they would be obliged to resign: this would have led to a general election and irreparably ruined his status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice."
Which ministers? Where does the general election conclusion etc. at the end come from? - to arrive at a conclusion is a summary of the effects, and therefore someone / some people must have arrived at this. Can you citate this please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan08:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All except one member of the British cabinet (Duff Cooper) were opposed to the marriage, as were at least the majority of the Dominion Prime Ministers. If I put in the ministers' names, it would have to either be a long-list, including the Dominions, or only Baldwin, which would lead to accusations of UK-centrism. I would rather not go to into too much detail in this article, as Elizabeth played no part in the abdication (she was conveniently suffering from 'flu throughout the entire crisis). The information is only included in order to provide context. I have altered the wording slightly (as a general election would have been unlikely since the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties were all opposed to the marriage), and provided a reference. DrKiernan15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The location of her birth remains uncertain, but reputedly she was born in her parents' London home at Belgrave Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens, or in a horse-drawn ambulance on the way to hospital. - This needs to be an "either...or" sentence.
Do we know why Elizabeth changed her mind and married Prince Albert?
No. I believe everything written on that subject so far is supposition, although there are various theories. Apparently, she was always very cagey about it, and refused to acknowledge ever saying no in the first place. I don’t know of any reliable sources for why she changed her mind. I think Sarah Bradford said it might have been because she waited for him to ask her personally (previously he’d only asked through intermediaries), Hugo Vickers admits point blank that we can only guess. DrKiernan15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although legally Edward could have married Mrs. Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that they would be obliged to resign if he insisted; this would have dragged the King into a general election thus ruining irreparably his status as a politically neutral constitutional Monarch. - This sentence or one like it belongs in your Edward VIII article. It makes the reasons for abdication clearer.
When the ex-king and his wife were created Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Elizabeth supported George VI's decision to withhold from Simpson the style of Royal Highness.[13] She was later quoted as referring to the Duchess as "that woman". - it is a little unclear who you are referring to in these sentences - the pronoun referents are unclear
The Canadian portion of the tour was extremely extensive, from coast to coast and back — they also briefly detoured into the United States, visiting the Roosevelts in the White House and at their Hudson River Valley estate — and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward. - the "extremely's" are unnecessary
During World War II, the King and Queen became symbols of the nation's resistance. Shortly after the declaration of war, The Queen's Book of the Red Cross was conceived: the book was ready for printing in two months. - explain book for the uninitiated
There are some missing citations in this article. The "Centenarian" and "Death" sections in particular are light. Moreover, the article starts to sound POV without them. Other reviewers have mentioned this as well, I think.
"The location of her birth remains uncertain ..." Why? Just a question of mine; you don't have to include the answer in the article!
For most of her life it was assumed that she was born in the family home at St Walden Bury, because that's where the birth was registered. However, in 1980 Clarence House admitted that she was actually born in London, "in the back of a taxi for all I know", Elizabeth is supposed to have said. Her staff amended that to a horse-drawn ambulance. Her biographers have since shown that in August 1900 Lady Strathmore was at their London residence, not the Bury. Hence, the three touted locations. DrKiernan
"He initially proposed to Elizabeth in 1921, but she initialy turned ..." Repetitive prose.
"this would have irreparably ruined Edward's status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice.[16] He chose to abdicate.[17] Edward chose to abdicate ... " Again repetitive, and a bit choppy.
I know that the "Queen mother" is a symbol and a beloved personality in UK, but with expressions like "Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, and by her sheer endurance" you may have problems with the no POV policy of Wikipedia. In general, do not overuse adjectives characterising subjectively a person ("charismatic" for Edward, "charmy", "shrewd", "canny" for the Queen mother). It is another thing, of course, if you quote somebody else telling these things.
All biographers (even the ones who hate her) agree that she was charming and popular; and all biographers (even the ones who adore her) agree that behind the image she was tough as old boots. The sentences you quote are supported by the references. If these comments were omitted, the article would no longer be fully inclusive of relevant material. DrKiernan08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Kelley and others also allege that during World War II Elizabeth did not abide by the rationing regulations to which the rest of the population was subject[52][54] however, this point is contradicted by the official records;[55][56]". Is the punctuation OK here? And something else: If you want to avoid to have citations in a row, there are ways to combine them in one citation. You can check Tourette syndrome or Battle of Edson's Ridge.
I have recently completed this page to my own standards, but I wanted to know what others think of it. I have no plans for it to be FA or GA but any improvement would be fantastic. I am a bit unsure of the design section if anyone has any ideas for that section. Todd66103:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it still needs more content. Check out San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge for ideas.--BirgitteSB 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I know it needs more content - especially things like traffic figures. But this is all there is available on the internet...although I haven't exhausted books yet. I start uni again next week so I will be able to look then. Todd66107:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a service to international Wikipedia readers, you might want to insert the word "Australia" somewhere (I'd suggest once in the infobox and once in the article). Other tips:
Avoid WP:WEASEL words: "has been said" — said by whom?
Some financial data would be nice. How much did it cost to design, build and maintain? Who is financing it?
The article really needs a section about the basic use of the bridge, between "Design" and "Incidents". How much traffic does it carry? What kind of traffic? What did it do to the local economy? How is it maintained? Right now, the article seems to suggest that the bridge was built to cause incidents only...
This is my first peer review and I would like to know what needs to be fixed in the article to help it reach FA status. It is currently in GAC right now behind a large backlog. Over the last few weeks I have scoured the Internet and found large amounts of information in a related book. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the article in an attempt to get this to FA, hopefully in time of the anniversary of the bombing. Thank you in advance for your time and effort. --Nehrams202001:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't receive any feedback the last attempt except for the automated peer review suggestions. The article has become a Good Article, but I would like to know what it needs before it goes to FAC. --Nehrams202021:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Just 90 minutes after the explosion" is too journalistic in style, just state the facts.
Changed to "shortly after the explosion".
Needs to summarise the main points in the article, looking at the headings, it appears that the "response and relief" section isn't summarised here.
The statement "Except where noted, all statements in this section are sourced from the book American Terrorist." would be best as a footnote or as part of the first reference in this section.
Converted to note.
"After finishing the configuration" maybe "construction" would be a better word.
Changed
Not clear from the text how the VIN number linked McVeigh to the bombing, since he used an alias and false ID to rent the truck.
The sentence "The missing leg appears to have been a sort of "clerical" error, but nothing after 1996 could be found about it" is unclear and confusing.
"(Michel & Herbeck 234)" should be moved to references if this is what it is. These also need to be moved from (Giordano 34), (Linenthal 140), (Linenthal 142-44) and (Michel & Herbeck 249) in later sections.
The "see also" link seems unnecessary if there is no evidence to link this man to the crime. This link could also have libel issues, I'd strongly recommend removing it.
Removed the link and his name from the See Also section.
In the "See also" section, there are serious legal problems with linking living people with this crime.
Removed the majority of the names.
The image Image:OkcW.jpg may need a fair-use rationale.
The license appears to have changed from several months ago, but I'll add one.
I'm having difficulty writing this article with out making it sound like an advertisement. I don't really feel there is enough information to make this article a GA or a featured article, but at its current state it has room for improvement. I realize there are not many pictures and I'm working on finding some that I have the licensing to use with out copy-vio. Mkdwtalk00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Bates Method page has been the site of some recent lively discussion, which has resulted in mediation. I would be grateful if anybody trained in opthalmology, visual science or, indeed, Bates practitioners themselves, would help to review this page. Thank you. Famousdog14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to peer review this article again. Since February (the last peer review), many changes have been made and I am contemplating nominating this article for FA status again. Please provide your thoughts on the overall structure, what it is missing and what I can do to get to FA. Thanks, --Daysleeper4722:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
Embarrassingly trivial, but I'd recommend cutting "as noted above" from the first para of History. I know it's already covered in the lead, but that's in the nature of the beast, and the phrase doesn't really add any meaning.
In the second para of 'History', I'm a little unclear on where the majority of the first settlers of the township came from. It says "While some of the area's early settlers were natives of Connecticut, Youngstown differed from most settlements of the Western Reserve, which drew a vast majority of their residents from New England. Youngstown attracted a significant number of Scots-Irish settlers from neighboring Pennsylvania as well". To me that says that the majority of the settlers were not from Connecticut or from New England and while there were 'significant numbers' of Scots-Irish, it seems these were not the majority either. What am I missing?
In the third para of 'History', am I right in thinking that the county seat of Trumbull County moved from Warren to Canfield to Youngstown? If so, is it necessary to mention that it was at Warren first? This doesn't really have anything to do with Youngstown and could be confusing.
I find the phrase "the discovery of coal in the community" confusing. I know what is meant by it ("the community discovered coal under their land"), but something about it reads wrong and sounds like they perhaps found it in the lumber room, or under the kitchen table. :) Perhaps "the discovery of coal by the community"?
Being really picky, the final sentence of 'History' (i.e. just before 'Peopling of the valley') says that the railroad came to the city in 1856. A couple of paras earlier it says that the village of Youngstown didn't become a city until 1867 - could this be reworded so as not to cause confusion?
I can't remember what the MoS says on the subject, but some style guides recommend that if there are sub-headings to a section all the text in the section should appear under a subheading. At present half the text of 'History' is under a sub-heading ('Peopling of the Valley'), while the other half comes directly under the main section heading. Suggest that the first bit could be called 'Origins' or 'Foundation'.
No reference for the statement that "ethnic diversity came to be regarded as one of Youngstown's defining characteristics"
Is the closure of Youngstown Sheet and Tube really a Swan song? I understand that term to mean some kind of final, magnificent performance before death. This seems just to have been the 'death', with no final performance. Suggest the term is removed.
Perhaps link Downtown at its first occurrence, or even explain its meaning. That wouldn't be necessary for US readers of course, but those of us across the pond aren't that familiar with what it actually means.
"has tended to overshadow that the city has a long entrepreneurial tradition" (At the start of 'Legacy of innovation') should be "has tended to overshadow the city's long entrepreneurial tradition".
Should the various organisations described in 'Legacy of innovation' be described in chronological order?
The second para of 'Legacy of innovation' seems to be more about 'Youngstown in popular culture'. I agree that the Springsteen song needs to be mentioned, but I'm not sure this is the place to do it.
Suggest replace "The school district is currently engaged in..." with "As of 2007? the school district was engaged in....". Similar for "This roster is expected to change in the next few years..."
Picky again, but under 'Theater', the word 'Interestingly' is not needed (comment also applies elsewhere) In the same paragraph, why say 'Meanwhile' when describing the Stambaugh auditorium? And again for the Oakland center for the Arts? In fact, I note quite a few appearances of meanwhile - probably a good idea to check whether meanwhile is really what is meant in each case.
The para on the Grandes Venues project should be cut down significantly, now that the project has failed.
The second para under 'Museums' contains an external jump link, which probably shouldn't be there.
"The downtown area boasted no less than two department stores" (under 'Former attractions') sounds odd and somewhat peacock-y. There are only two numbers less than two you can have! Suggest "There were formerly two department stores in the downtown area".
Movie theaters in the downtown area are mentioned at least twice: in 'Former attractions' and 'Theater' (I've a feeling it may be more than that, actually). It's not that notable, it need only be mentioned once. Similarly, the Chevrolet center appears twice - again, once only needed.
Section title 'Challenging old verities': Suggest use 'truths' instead, clearer for many readers.
Suggest that there is probably a more encyclopedic term than 'gangland slayings', although I'll admit I don't know what it is off the top of my head!
Overall a clear and certainly comprehensive article. It does feel like the balance of the piece isn't quite there yet, though: I'd like to see more on the history and development of the city, and perhaps less on the current buildings and amenities, which may not all be notable. Anyway - hope that's helpful 4u1e12:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only major ting I noticed is that the geography and media sections don't have references. I personally don't think they're necessary in the geography section, and not too necessary in media, but I'm sure the people at FAC would disagree, so I'll point it out. Wizardman17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was recently passed as a Good Article, and I feel it merits consideration as a Featured Article. I would like to get some more eyes on it before submitting a nomination. --cholmes75(chit chat)19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some work on this article lately but would like some broader feedback, particularly from editors not as closely tied to Penn State as myself who may be able to offer some more objective feedback. Any and all criticism is welcome! Thanks in advance. PSUMark2006talk | contribs17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went to Penn State, but I'd one topic that I think should be addressed (perhaps near the Demographics and Trends sections) is the alleged racial discrimination that some students feel at Penn State. The "Village" incident in April-May of 2001 was a very big story at Penn State, which was a week long sit-in at the HUB due to death threats against black students. [13] Discrimination (racial or non-racial) is still a big issue to many students at Penn State today, as just yesterday week the Black Caucus participated in a sit-in regarding the former women's basketball player Jen Harris [14]. To keep that section balanced, perhaps a mention or two of what Penn State is doing to help minority students. Terryfilene2220:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a mention of Penn State having the highest tuition in the nation for a "public flagship university", according to USA Today? (even though PSU is technically state-related) [15] The article needs a more balanced view of the university in order not to violate WP:PRESTIGE. The two biggest issues I can think of when it comes to criticism of PSU are alleged discrimination issues and high tuition bills. Arthurberkhardt03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I'm only concerned with this material:
Mindell's theories on health and nutrition have been met with criticism in the scientific community. For example, Mindell claims that eating foods that are high in DNA and RNA will help reverse the aging process. In truth, these nucleic acids are digested and never reach human somatic cells in such a form that would directly benefit the consumer. Similarly, Mindelll has previously promoted oral supplements of an "anti-aging" enzyme, superoxide dismutase (SOD). There is currently no evidence for the supposed benefits of SOD, and it is known that the enzyme would not survive the digestive process if taken orally.
The associated reference is:
Schwarcz, Joe (2006-08-19). "Beware of Juices That Claim to Cure". The Montreal Gazette: J11.
Not my line, but I suggest the words "In truth, .." be replaced by something like "Scientific consensus suggests that ..". I think you also want sources for both Mindell's claim and the scientific consensus. --Bduke05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I'm all for peer reviewing of scientific articles, I'm not sure we can peer review a dynamic source like WP. I'm not even sure how that would work. I've just had an article accepted that's been in peer review for three months (and those reviews were good ones!). Wikipedia is self-correcting and if there's a problem with the statement you have suggested for review, somebody who knows better will come along and edit it. Basically, Wikipedia, by being open access, will peer review itself. Secondly, Joe Schwarcz (McGill University) is a pretty respectable source, he's not some hack. Famousdog14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a knock on Schwarczy, I paraphrased the sections of his article that I used for the Earl Mindell entry and just wanted confirmation that it is "legit."
Right I'm resubmitting this for a second review. I've done some work recently collecting references and starting a rivalries section. Also I shortern down the managers list and started a new article with the full list. The takeover section is a mess at the moment but as it is due to go through today (12/02/07) or tomorrow I will clean then, whilst it's all still up in the air I can't see much point. Jimmmmmmmmm13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad article. What it does need is more references.
Comments like: "is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers", "many supporters refer to the ground as Filbert Way", "This change was unpopular" and "a strong feeling that the naming rights had been underpriced", to name a few, are uncited.
A few emotive and pov terms like "would break the clubs heart", "more playoff heartbreak" and "easily the best manager of recent years" don't really need to be there.
The links to external websites in the colours section should be converted into inline citations.
The records and statistics section needs citations.
Why are the listed managers significant? Some criteria should be established for this, such as all managers who won a trophy, or took charge of 200+ games, for instance.
The last decade of Leicester's history gets almost as much coverage as the previous 100 years. Perhaps more could be trimmed?
Can some of Leicester's older crests be uploaded and added to the page?
As well as SteveO's comments, I'd like to highlight a few things:
I don't think you need to say what the club hasn't won in the lead. The lead also needs expanding a bit
"Under the new name the club enjoyed moderate success in the 1920s." Perhaps needs rephrasing. If they reached their highest ever placing then I'd say that was more than moderate, although losing that word might make the sentence a bit POV.
"City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949,[1]captained by Norman Plummer, losing 3-1 to Wolves." I suggest changing that to "City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949.[1] Captained by Norman Plummer, they lost 3-1 to Wolves."
"emerged into the first team" is a bit clunky. Can't think of a viable alternative right now.
"After the Premiership was founded in 1992 Leicester tried desperately to gain promotion to it." Doesn't everyone? I'd suggest merging that into the next sentence. "Were close to joining the newly formed Premiership when they reached the play-offs" or something better worded than that!
"First Division clubs for TV rights), the large wage bill, lower than expected fees for players transferred to other clubs and the £37 million cost of the new stadium. =[4]" Rogue =!
What colours did Leicester wear before 1910/between 1910-1940?
"have been used every season since the mid 1940s" Well, they haven't, seeing as the next sentence details a 1-season colour change.
"In 2004, the current kit also features white pinstripes, which have previously featured in kits from the 1980s." Lose the odd "in 2004".
"this led manager Martin O'Neill to say he used to "lead new signings out backwards" so they only saw the Carling Stand.[7]" Why the Carling stand? Surely the whole ground was undeveloped?
You need a full list of managers in a sub article.
What SteveO or HornetMike said. Some additional thoughts of my own:
Intro could be little longer.
Recent history could be a little shorter.
What exactly caused Leicester Fosse to fold? "Financial difficulties" is a little vague.
Singular/plural should be used consistently.
Some sentences are little short, making the prose quite abrupt.
Years should be unwikified, and seasons used rather than years.
Citations needed for unpopularity of the new white kit, the fact the naming rights are underpriced, fans disregarding the Walkers Stadium official name.
"a new jazzed up version" is unencyclopaedic and vague
Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference, as the M69 derby reference does - and to be honest it's such an innocuous claim I don't think it needs referencing anyway.
This diff on the first two paras of the History section shows some of the changes in style I recommend - cutting out unnecessary repetition of certain terms, and tidying the prose (e.g. two sentences in a row starting with "Under") a little. Qwghlm00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been ill since I submitted this so I'll go through whats been said in the next week or so. Did notice one thing, someone said about an sub artcle of managers, I already did that, strange it wasn't spotted.Jimmmmmmmmm13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be fairly comprehensive, but right off the bat I would suggest that the article be reorganized based on the suggested sections at the Medicine Manual of Style with a few modifications. I find that this is the flow of information that enables me to best understand a disease, and that these section delineations would probably greatly improve the readability of this article. I would propose the content be organized into the following section types (they don't necessarily need to be named as below):
Classification - What kind of disease (i.e oomycete) and which plants are affected by the disease (the "hosts").
Signs and symptoms or Characteristics- What does this disease do to the plant (the "symptoms").
Causes - It is really important in this article to separate the "cause" from the "disease" (i.e. polioviruscausespolio; Phytophthora ramorum causes Sudden Oak Death) this distinction needs to be made more clearly.
Pathophysiology or Mechanism - How does the organism cause the disease? Does it destroy some integral tree part or does it inhibit some integral tree function? How does the agent get into the plant's cells? ect.. Much more information should be added about this.
Prognosis (social impact may also be discussed) -What happens to the tree, what about other trees.
Diagnosis, Treatment, Management, Prevention - essentially the "Control mechanisms" section.
Epidemiology- "It was first discovered in California in 1995 when large numbers of Tan oaks (Lithocarpus densiflorus) died mysteriously,..." should lead this section off, the "Presence" section, "Transmission" section and the "two mating types" section should also go here.
History- the "Possible origins" section could go here.
See also
Notes and references- All external links should be removed from the body of the article, make them into "notes" like: <ref>See here for sanitation suggestions: http://nature.berkeley.edu/comtf/html/sanitation___reducing_spread.html </ref>
External links- this should be the very last section.
A few other suggestions:
Avoid using the word "it", substitute "the disease", "sudden oak death" or "P. ramorum", etc..
The references should include a PMID number (where available) and formatting should be updated using {{cite}} templates. I will volunteer to do this, if you like.
Reads well. It covers history, style, and includes a good synopsis. Was the original performer for the part of Juno unknown--is that why the dash is there? Nothing jumps out to me needing improvement. Nice job. Antandrus (talk)19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more links and linked the full date of first performance: still neeeds a copy-edit to get rid of redundancies, but that can wait for a bit. If I've never seen an opera infobox there probably isn't one. Anything else, anyone? MoreschiRequest a recording?13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should you mention what kind of orchestra it is scored for? Also, check out the Don Giovanni article. Note the way arias are mentioned in the Synopsis; and/or note the "List of famous arias" and "Media" near the bottom. Also, the Mozart, Puccini and Verdi operas all have a box listing the composer's operas, so that all of his opera articles are easily cross-linked. Not a bad idea and nifty looking. How about a photo from an album cover? -- Ssilvers19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find the orchestration requirements. I've included some of the more important/interesting arias into the synopsis. Handel opera-box? Not a bad idea, I'll see what I can do. Cheers, MoreschiRequest a recording?20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK:
Do you need all of those references in the lead? Aren't they replicated somewhere down below? There really shouldn't be anything in the lead that you haven't covered later on in the article.
Is there an opera infobox you can add to the top?
I don't think so, and I loathe infoboxes anyway.
The image of the title page of original printed edition and the image of Handel are probably better off swapped.
Done.
All footnotes need to come after a punctuation mark (full stop, comma etc.). The people at FAC can get very anal about this, so you'll need to move many of them.
When I have my bookmarks open, the roles section gets utterly screwed up. You may be better off converting it into a more conventional type of table.
You're very reliant on one reference work - have you tried finding other sources? Also, the reference to Britannica seems a bit strange - should encyclopedias be cited as a source?
Added and cited some more stuff from Sawyer. Winton Dean is the daddy for Handelians, though. He's very good.
Not ideal, but permitted per WP:RS. Britannica qualifies as high quality.
You have no external links or see also. Both would probably be good (links to similar operas? Articles on it's time period? Musical recording available online?).
"See also" section done. Not sure if there are any really useful external links out there.
Your images are all on the right hand side. Ideally, they need to alternate.
That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll take another look once you're done with that lot. Great article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated comments (good work so far!): Info about orchestration; photo from the cover of an available recording; "most famous" arias; Background info about the original production: How did Handel get together with Grimani? How did they select the subject of the opera? How did they come to assemble such a stellar cast? And more info about the subsequent productions: Any more info about why it was not performed for over 200 years? Who revived it? Is it given frequently nowadays? Is it now one of his most famous? -- Ssilvers20:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve the prose, especially in the History section:
All the places where have been preserved. -this doesn't make any sense
Juana Rangel de Cuellar donated 782 hectares to the founding of the site, at the centre of which was a church around which a village grew, at a considerable rate due to being well-sited for commerce. - run-on sentence
The combatants were 400 men under the control... - The combatants included 400 men under the control ...
This branch wasn't built due econocimic problems. - spelling/grammar
In the history section, this needs clarifying: "Although the victory was not strategically important, it boosted the morale of Bolivar's forces to free to Venezuela." Did you mean "to free Venezuela"? -Malkinann06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like this Senate election page was fixed up by a lot of people and I thought that it might make a good example for current and future Senate pages. I just cleaned up the references, and I'm sure that more can be done, so I figured I should open the page up for review. Bridger00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I believe that all the automated suggestions have been met except for the last one, but I have tagged the article as in need of copyediting to make sure that the last suggestion will be taken care of as well. I'm still working on trying to reformat the polling data into one table. Thanks for the comments. Bridger16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so far, well referenced. If you want this to be a Good or Featured article, I would spell out some abbreviations (PA-18 for example, use the full title of the wikilinked article). I would also convert all embedded links to external sites into inline citation references (the poll results especially). Finally, there are three sections that are almost all tables or lists and need some explanatory text to make things flow better and be less choppy. The sections are Election results (perhaps explain the swing and +/- as not everyone knows what these are), Candidates (perhaps make the chronology clearer - not clear in this section who was in the primary and who in the general election) and Opinion polling (explain who each pollster / institute is, talk about trends, perhaps move some other text here). I hope this is helpful, keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just at a glance: about 70% of the article is tables. I don't know if that is encyclopedic but I would guess not. Mostly lists and tables should probably be converted to prose. I think they would be especially harsh on that over at GAC or FAC. I can do a more thorough edit on this if you would like though, let me know.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated for FA in 2004. The main thing was its shortness. History was mentioned to be poor; that has since been fixed. The applications section should be turned into prose, rather than a list. I've tried to do that with palladium. Referencing can be improved. Otherwise, I think it's not a bad article. --Rifleman 8220:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Stone. Have some reservations about the first link because while the page itself is fine, the site promotes the use of colloidal silver, and that is not without controversy. I've cleaned up the list, turning it into prose. Perhaps someone can take a look and improve it where needed? Link #2 seems excellent. I'll look into that one in more detail again. --Rifleman 8202:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has some good content, but I think it needs a little more work. You might want to take a look at how the Hydrogen featured article is organized, starting with a history. The introduction seems too short; it doesn't really summarize the article. You might mention the actual percent reflectivity of untarnish silver in the optical spectrum, and also the use of transparent quartz overcoats on silver mirrors to prevent tarnishing. Overall I'd say it needs more citations. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2007 (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.
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much. reduced --Rifleman 8207:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.” done --Rifleman 8207:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] done --Rifleman 8207:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The silvering has to rewritten, the description of aluminium sputtering is longer than the famous Liebig silvering which is still used for high qualizy mirrors. I added the references to the original publication in the silvering article.--Stone16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better than when I nominated it, but then FA criteria were much, much weaker back then. Still a lot of work to do. This one is on my list but I'm currently working on getting Uranium ready for FAC. Please look at that article to get an idea of how a metal element article should be organized and cited. --mav03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completed the outstanding open automated items except the thorough copyedit - do not feel qualified. Re-checked other items due to new entries. What's the next step?MornMore (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is my first biographical article, and just the 2nd proper article over all. I have ideas for several other new articles in my mind, but I wanted to get this one checked before I proceeded with the others. I've tried to keep in mind all the criteria of good article in mind when creating this, but since I'm new, I'm sure they'll be things I can improve on, so I'll appreciate a review. Thanks in advance.Zainub13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some brief comments: An image and more citations would be good. Is there a birth date available? Is she an adherent of the religion of Islam? If so which branch? The sentence that reads, "Dawoud is one of only two women ever to be crowned Miss Afghanistan in December 1972" makes it sound as if two women were crowned on December 1972. Please disambiguate. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch
Good start. I fixed some of the automated suggestions, above. Try to be more specific - the names of her father and mother and son are not given, (nor is it made clear if her name changed on marriage or her maiden name if different - is this the custom in Afghanistan?). Her college education is not mentioned until she is scrubbing floors. Also missing are her date of birth (as noted above), her birth-order in her family (is she the oldest cild, youngest, second, etc.), and the dates (not just years) of her pageant win, marriage, flights to Germany and the USA, etc.
I would also copyedit it carefully as there are many unclear or awkward sentences (the League of Copyeditors can help). I would also use the correct title of wikilinks that are redirects (i.e. TV -> television). Some examples of unclear sentences: "Her father was a Columbia University graduate doctor, and Afghanistan's surgeon general and her mother also belonged to a well-known family." How about "Her father, Joe Yousuf, was Afghanistan's surgeon general and a Columbia University trained physician, from a family known for... Her mother, Mary Jones Yousuf,... then say why her mother's family was well known and give reference(s). Second example: "But as the pageant gained popularity, she decided to enter and eventually landed the title because of her intelligent responses during the question and answer session." If this was the first pageant, how did it gain popularity? Eventually makes it sound like the pageant was a multiday or weeklong event. This also needs a reference - all the refs are in one section and one external link needs to be converted to an inline ref. I hope this helps, keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam
Great initiative Zainub! In my opinion, you did a good job of writing the article. However, more references and some grammar copyedits might help. For example, "Her father was a Columbia University graduate doctor, and Afghanistan's surgeon general and her mother also belonged to a well-known family." appears to be a run-on sentence. Also, readers might find an image to be a great addition to the article. Keep up the good work. Thanks, AnupamTalk20:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion on the article's talk page about peer review and some changes have been suggested, and some of those implemented, however the editors of the page (which include myself) now appear happy with the current composition as the page is stable. The opinion of objective outsiders is requested in order to strengthen the page. DrKiernan13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite good, actually, but I'd broaden the focus slightly to give a bit more detail on the couple, and cite some of the obvious-seeming conclusions and similes.
Historical precedents - add at least one citation to each paragraph, not about the facts, but that these were considered relevant precedents
Hmmn, I still have to search for one for the Hanoverians. There's a mildly amusing line in Ziegler where Walter Monckton hides a biography of Mrs. Fitzherbert (George IV's mistress/"wife") that he found in Mrs. Simpson's room. But I'm not sure that's relevant. DrKiernan13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"when the duke later married" - give date. Important to see relationship to abdication date, speech date, etc. Probably also worth a few to words to say where they lived and how.
Picture of Churchill seems unnecessary unless you explain how he was more important than he seems in the article - in what capacity was he acting when he polished the speech? Surely not as PM, which is what he was most famous for, and not as Naval leader, his other area of fame.
Then the picture of Churchill seems unnecessary and more distracting than illuminating. It's a one-sentence off-hand mention of the man, there a dozen people mentioned multiple times in the article that don't get pictures. It's worth its ten words in the sentence, but hardly the "thousand" of the picture.
"to serve during the war/Hitler" - these 2 paras are important, but don't seem to belong in a subsection on his speech. Move, or make a new subsection for them.
# 4 Options considered, # 5 Legal manoeuvres, # 6 Abdication, # 7 One speech, two versions - that's a lot of sections. Can they be made subsections of one or two larger sections, perhaps?
"Rumours circulated that there would be a "patriotic" citizen's intervention (a legal device to block the divorce), which worried Goddard, fearing such an intervention would be successful."
"Whilst she authorised her solicitor to say that she was "willing to ... do anything to prevent the King from abdicating," the common perception was that the King had made up his mind to go, even if he could not marry Mrs. Simpson, a belief borne out by his ultimate actions."
I created this article a few days ago. I requested feedback, but didn't receive any and I hope it means that this article is simply good. It has been rated as B-class by WikiProject Arthropods which is quite a success, consindering I'm not a biologist. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions. Not being a native English speaker, I will be particularly grateful for pointing out (or correcting) any linguistic or stylistic mistakes. Thanks, Kpalion19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kpalion. I think the article is quite good, and would recommend a copy-edit. You can check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, or I'd be willing to do it (or both). Could you find more sources, and/or expand the number of inline citations? With work in these areas, it would be a fine Featured article candidate. I may also be able to find some journal articles on the topic, but I'm not sure how obscure these bugs are. You can email me if you want to pursue such sources. –Outriggr§01:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for prompt feedback, Outriggr. Most of the information in this article comes from two articles listed in the "Sources" section, so I decided to use inline citation only for fact taken from other sources. Please let me know if you have a better suggestion. The topic does seem pretty obscure, even Polish sources are scarce. I will be trying to get my hands on Jakubski's monograph, but I'm not sure if and when I will find it (besides, it was written before WW2). I will appreciate any additional sources, especially in English, you can find. What should I do to request the League's help in copy-editing? Kpalion14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can submit a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading under the section "Requests for copy-editing assistance". I found some mentions of the P.C. in articles that I could email you. However, they are probably of limited use. If you wish, send me an email first so I can reply with attachments. This article is better than B class so I suggest you at least try for a "Good Article" stamp of approval. –Outriggr§01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the materials you sent me, I used some of them to improve the article. The article has been copy-edited and is now listed as a good article. — Kpalion(talk)11:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about alternative rock band Evanescence. The Evanescence WikiProject hopes to nominate this article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the future.
Main points
Is it easy to understand for non-fans?
Is it possible for this article to be a GA or FA?
If not, what does the article need to improve and get to GA or FA?
Wich sections need more attetion?
Armando.O (talk|contribs)02:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article generally informative and well written. It could always be better, of course, and I have tagged a couple of awkward sentences near the beginning.
I think it has a good chance to pass GA, if you can fix those citation needed tags.
For FA, I personally think the prose is not good enough, but then my standards here are higher than most reviewers.
I'm not really sure you should stick all those subcategories under "History". It seems to me you really want to structure the article around the album releases, with a separate section for the Christian controversy. --Ideogram09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is there a better picture that we can use for the Evanescence article? one where you can clearly see them closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacanescence (talk • contribs) 04:49, February 18, 2007(UTC)
It's more or less easy to understand. :) It seems to be formatted per Template:Biography which is good. It does have a good chance of GA but the 'dress sense' portion is both underreferenced and doesn't really prove the notability of her dress sense. Does she influence the fashion of her fans? There are a few stylistic issues, like the positioning of the references (they should be after punctuation marks) - I'd suggest you read the WP:MOS for help. In some places the grammar is out too - Amy Lee at a concert on 2006 should be in 2006 for one that I saw - there may be more. Reading other GAs should help you in your quest. Good luck - Malkinann23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-fan reporting for duty.) Yes, it's easy to understand. My main issue with the article is that it doesn't seem to make up its mind whether it's about Amy Lee (the person) or Evanescence (the band). For example: the (very short) "Fallen" section lists the sales figures for that album. This might be interesting for the band's article, but doesn't tell us anything useful about Amy Lee. The same goes for the latter half of the "Founding" section and the first part of "The Open Door". As there already is a good article about Evanescence, you should concentrate on things Amy Lee herself did, said, thought and accomplished, in my opinion. Cheers. --Plek21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also add how critics have reacted towards her duet with Shaun Morgan? In this make sure to name the critics or magazines in questioning that you're quoting. LuciferMorgan21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Malkinann did a pretty good with most of those already. :) The only things that remain to be done of those suggestions are the lead (I've been putting some thought into that) and one musical song whose description just needs verification. Actually, I can get rid of that uncertainty just by snipping half a sentence. Okay! --Masamage01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Senshi powers" seems too crufty to me and "Music" seems out of place in a character article.
A poll of 586 votes doesn't seem credible enough to claim that she is "the most popular character in the series". I'm sure plenty of other polls of similar size have had any of the Sailors win.
The article quickly aquires an overly in-universe tone.
The "Profile" section contains too many overly trivial details. Do we really need to know that "Besides reading, Ami loves playing chess and swimming"? Tighten this up.--SeizureDog19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the perspective on the lists - I didn't realise how listy the article was until you pointed it out. We'll have a think about how to paragraph some of the lists. I'm unsure if we should remove the Senshi powers, as that would take away from the comprehensiveness of the article, but perhaps if we talked more generally about Ami's role in battle as the brains that'd be a solution? The poll seems to have had more than one thousand votes.. but we're looking for a better reference on that. I agree that it does seem in-universe in places... I'm not sure about your familiarity with Sailor Moon, but part of the appeal lies in the varied characters, ie. the dollbox statistics. If we tried to remove any of the statistics details, (swimming, blood type, school club) it'd come back so often it just wouldn't be funny. -Malkinann11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. People are constantly editing those parts. Even when the stats were in a list, folks came and added duplicates of the list. --Masamage22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well do try to do something about it. Right now it feels like an article that goes on and on about what Peter Parker's favorite foods and hobbies are, only to end with "oh yeah, he also happens to be Spider-Man". Seriously, compare "Profile" to "Aspects and forms". If you can find that much to say about her normal self, it seems like there should be more information (aside from an attack list) for her most important role.--SeizureDog17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that does put it in perspective. I've put up a section stub. Does the profile read better now that Masamage has tried to make it out of universe? -Malkinann21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to Malkinann. Later this afternoon I'll see what I can do about expanding the Senshi section, and possibly providing more context for the statistics. It's true that right now they're like, "Yay the cute shy one likes sandwiches yay!" --Masamage22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we changed the 'Music' section header to say 'Image songs', would that make it less incongruous? Or should it perhaps be prose-ified too, and made to include her poems and things as well? --Masamage05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are pretty relevant. They appear in anime episodes, or they make statements about the character that aren't made so clearly anywhere else. (In at least one case we're using an image poem as a reference.) Anyway, most of the characters had multiple "single" albums, and there are many dozen larger albums covering at least a hundred SM songs, probably more. I shudder to think of cataloguing them all there are entire,enormous websites devoted to that. My feeling is that if it comes to cruft, this is definitely the least crufty way to handle the music, and if there's a lack of context for why the heck a music section exists, there probably should be more prose. --Masamage07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that's she has image songs is important for the average reader to know. Specificly which songs however, is not. Homer Simpson has also sang a number of songs throughout his series, but that doesn't mean he needs a section listing them. Just take "A number of image songs featuring Ami's character have been released.", stick it in the lead (which I just realized really needs to be expanded), and remove the rest.--SeizureDog09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done as you've suggested, saving the song list in the talk page - maybe if the songs are particularly relevant, they'll make their way back in as references? -Malkinann10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've expanded the section on Ami's "Sailor Mercury" role + lead and significantly expanded the section on her "Dark Sailor Mercury" role. Maybe the FU rationale for DSM needs work? If the peer review doesn't seem like we'll get any more comments, we can always request that it gets archived - although it seems that a FAC is an automatic out of the peer review system.. ;) -Malkinann05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the FU rationale for DSM's image, which brings them all up-to-date except for the picture of Chisaki Hama in civilian clothes. I have no idea where that one comes from. Unless it's on the Oracle? I'll check that when I get home tonight. Anyway, I'm going to try and figure out if it's kosher to ask the main WP Anime talk page to come look over here. If it is, I'll try that and we can get some more insight before moving on. --Masamage22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - I'd thought eternal-moon.org, but it doesn't seem to be there. Maybe we should swap it to one of her with glasses (cos we talk about her glasses a lot)??? -Malkinann23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it at the Oracle, but it seems to be just a modelling shot for Chisaka Hama, not a screenshot from the show. But here's a pretty good shot of Ami in glasses. --Masamage21:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saha41.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chad_Map.jpg){kind=link}
