Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Shortcut: WP:PR

Purge server cache

This page is for nearly Featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured article candidates. Requests for peer review are listed here to expose articles to closer scrutiny than they might otherwise receive. See Category:Wikipedia style guidelines and Category:Wikipedia how-to for advice on writing great articles. Or look at the discussion of the perfect article and try to reach as many of those ideals as possible. If an article needs extensive work, please list it on Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup. Please list article content disputes on Requests for comment rather than here.

Note: Peer review is the process of review by peers and usually implies a group of authoritative reviewers who are equally familiar and expert in the subject. The process represented by this page is not formal peer review in that sense and articles that undergo this process cannot be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

The path to a Featured Article
Start a new article Research and write a great article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback (Peer review) Apply for featured article status Featured articles

Instructions

How to make a request

• Anyone can request peer review here. When posting your request, include a brief description of the kind of comments/contributions you want, and sections of the article you think need to be reviewed. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to the comments you do get.
• Procedure for adding nominations:

1. Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page (not the article itself) to let other editors of the article know that the article is being peer reviewed.
2. From there, click on the link request has been made that appears in the new "peer review" box. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top (do not forget the link brackets).
4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
5. Place {{Wikipedia:Peer review/name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of nominees found on this page (Requests).
6. Politely request feedback on the discussion pages of one or more articles in the same or a related field, and/or send messages to one or more individual Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a closely related field.

How to respond to a request

• Scan the list of requests below, and if one catches your fancy, follow the link to the article and read it. If you think something's wrong with the article; i.e., it's too long, there's no lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors, etc., post a comment in the appropriate section on this page.
• If the issue is trivial and/or you have the time and knowledge to fix it, it is advised that you make an effort to resolve the issue. If you do so, please make a note of it on the page to keep others informed about the article's progress.

How to remove a request

• To free up the page for active traffic, and to make peer review a more dynamic and valuable process, you are invited to move inactive requests to the current archive link. Inappropriate listings, listings older than a month, and articles that have gone on to be listed as featured article candidates can and should be removed, as well as apparently forgotten requests where the requester has not responded to comments (if you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts). Please see the request removal policy for specifics.
• After removing the listing from this page, contributors should place {{oldpeerreview}} in place of the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page.
• If your request is removed, please feel free to put it back at the top of the list later.

How to resubmit a request

• Procedure for requesting a brand new peer review request:

1. Move the peer review page to Wikipedia:Peer review/example/Archive1
2. Edit the page Wikipedia:Peer review/example, remove the redirect.
3. Resubmit the request and make a note where the old request is via a wikilink.

Archive links

• current: November 2005
• older: October 2005, September 2005, August 2005, July 2005, June 2005, May 2005, April 2005, March 2005, February 2005, January 2005, December 2004, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1

See also Peer reviews for Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 How to make a request 1.2 How to respond to a request 1.3 How to remove a request 1.4 How to resubmit a request 1.5 Archive links 2 Requests 2.1 Hugo Chávez 2.2 Psilocybe cubensis 2.3 Albanian language 2.4 Ceteris paribus 2.5 The Day After 2.6 Neuropsychopharmacology 2.7 Economics of the Iroquois 2.8 Religious Society of Friends 2.9 Texas State Highway 195 2.10 I Heard It Through the Grapevine 2.11 Hollaback Girl 2.12 Céline Dion 2.13 Northern Ireland naming dispute 2.14 Claudius 2.15 The Waterboys 2.16 Sleepy Lagoon Murder 2.17 Eton College 2.18 Constantine Maroulis 2.18.1 Sex symbol claim 2.19 Delrina 2.20 Rhapta 2.21 Ubykh language 2.22 List of Northwest Territories capitals 2.23 Geography of the Yukon 2.24 Harrow School 2.25 List of NFL champions 2.26 BASIC programming language 2.27 William Shakespeare 2.28 South India 2.29 Malta 2.30 Marching band 2.31 Nashua, New Hampshire 2.32 Palpatine 2.33 Karin Sowada 2.34 Apple Macintosh 2.35 Fabio Lione 2.36 2005 Ashes series 2.37 Sydney Swans 2.38 Irna Phillips 2.39 Battle of Queenston Heights 2.40 Department store 2.41 TGV 2.42 USA PATRIOT Act, Title I 2.43 Pneumonia 2.44 Marilyn Manson 2.45 History of Ireland 2.46 Guinness 2.47 Imperialism in Asia 2.48 Lightning 2.49 smotherbox 2.50 Dromornithidae 2.51 The West Wing (television) 2.52 Game theory 2.53 Unclean animals 2.54 Prester John 2.55 Raney nickel 2.56 manifold 2.56.1 Cdc 2.56.2 Tony1 2.56.3 Dethomas 2.56.4 KSmrq 2.56.5 NatusRoma 2.57 Canadian federal election, 1993 2.58 International cricket in 2005 2.59 Portland, Oregon 2.60 List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005 2.61 Ephrem the Syrian 2.62 Advance Wars: Dual Strike 3 Archives

Requests

Hugo Chávez

This article has undergone a first peer review here. All comments and concerns in that peer review were quickly acted upon, except for concerns on article size (despite significant shortenings and summarizations). Peer review information is needed on the comprehensiveness of the article, and what material in the article should be shortened or summarized. Contributors are attempting to make the Hugo Chávez article the only FA that discusses a Latino leader, and only the second FA about an indigenous native heritage leader (after Louis Riel). Information comparing this article to the Riel piece (in terms of scope, depth, comprehensiveness, and structural outlay) would be most appreciated. All comments will recieve a response and will be acted upon quickly (within half a day at most). Thank you. Saravask 01:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Psilocybe cubensis

I want to see if any information should be added, and I'm curious if a separate section should be added on the safety issues of 'mushroom-hunting'/looking for Psilocybe Cubensis. I added a small bit of safety information at the last paragraph but I'm not sure if it really fits, if you know what I mean. - Xer0X 20:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Albanian language

This article has undergone vast improvement over the last few days and I would like some feedback on what other editors feel should be improved, what is lacking in clarity, is the article sufficiently NPOV etc. The current layout of the article is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Language Template, but this article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Pages using the template needing attention and has been there, well... since forever. Any sugestions that could help it be removed from the *yuk* list are welcome. Rex^(talk) 21:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It still needs:

• more on contacts with other languages, maybe some statistics about how many words are "native" and how many borrowed and from where.
• the history is still sketchy.
• the comparison table is not very concludent: a better table should include Latin, Sanskrit, Proto-Slavic/Old Slavonic, Gothic/Old Germanic and Old Norse, Ancient Greek, some old Iranian language, Armenian and Lithuanian. A table with these languages would be very useful for showing its affiliation (Satem, etc) A reconstruction of the words in Albanian as they looked 2000 years ago would be great, but probably harder to find! The non-Indo-European languages certainly don't belong in there.
• more details on grammar -- there's almost nothing on the verb system.
• phonetical changes, from Indo-European until the Roman times, from the Roman times to Common Albanian and the ones made by each dialect -- this would require reading some more scientific studies :-)
• writing system -- maybe some pictures with documents in Greek and Arabic scripts. bogdan | ^Talk 22:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

OK they'll all be seen to (easier said than done). Bear in mind however that Latin, Armenian, Lithuanian and Sanskrit are on the table. Rex^(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus

This is a nice article. Is there more work that should be done?

• It is well written. Right off the bat it needs sources and external links.Logophile 14:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Day After

The article is about a relatively groundbreaking and well known television film. Article's developed into a rather in depth representation of the film, its background, and its reception. Any comments, criticisms, and contributions are appreciated. Volatile 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Neuropsychopharmacology

I hope to put this article up for candidacy as featured article at some point. I have tried to impart a sense of the revolutionary strides that have been made in this field within the last 15 or so years, and have tried to provide a prudent, complete set of links out to appropriate articles so that a reader with minimal background can follow through (at this time I have not edited many links coming to this page yet). I am not professionally trained in this or related fields, so there's a chance that some of the detail may be open to debate. Otherwise there could be just about anything that someone may find could be improved. Thanks in advance for any help. --RichG 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Having very little knowledge of pharmacology and neuroscience, I find it a bit hard to follow. I don't expect to grasp all the technical details, but the writing could be improved (it's not bad, but could be better). A good idea is to open each section with a brief, very general explanation of how the concept to be described relates to the topic at large. The section on "Neurotransmission" comes to mind as violating this principle, starting out listing facts without relating them to neuropsychopharmacology. (The reader shouldn't be assumed to have memorized the information in the lead section.) The writing style I'm suggesting might introduce a tiny bit of redundancy, but it makes it much easier to get an overview for a non-expert. The images are also a bit hard to understand, and would benefit from more detailed captions. Looks great otherwise. Fredrik | talk 20:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Economics of the Iroquois

(Self-nomination) This article covers much of the information available on the subject, while not incredibly long. The article also covers an important area (Native Americans) that Wikipedia often neglects, so getting a FA article in the area would be useful. All facts are referenced and several relevant images are included in the article.--Bkwillwm 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Very nice article! We definitely need more article on Native American subject. I'm just about to go to bed, but I wanted to make a few suggestions. I'll read the article thoroughly tomorrow and make some more comments. I think you can certainly enlarge the pictures. They all seem too small especially Champlain's view of the deer hunt and the engraving of the fishing scene. Both are almost too small to make out without viewing a larger version. I would also suggest using a citation system similar to the one I used in my FA on the Mandan people of North Dakota. It simply makes for easier viewing and it's not difficult to implement. The introduction does not give anything in terms of actual dates that this article covers; I find the issue of the time period that this article covers to be a bit vague. The title of books in Reference should be italicized. Overall this is a very nice looking article and it certainly covers an important subject! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia doesn't "neglect" anything, because Wikipedia is not a being. It is the product of choices made by individuals who volunteer to write and edit articles. Feel free to produce more articles on Native Americans and encourage others to do the same.Logophile 14:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious Society of Friends

A bounty has been offered for the improvement of this article to featured status. It is one of my pet articles, and I would like to see it as a featured article. I think those of us who have edited it would appreciate suggestions on tightening the prose, improving the organization, and anything else that would be helpful. Thanks. Logophile 10:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Logophile (and others.) I am concerned about this "bounty" thing; I do not want to derail the peer review, so I will point people to my comments on it [1], and encourage people to discuss that separate issue there. In the meantime, I hope people do help us out with peer review! Sdedeo 10:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Good article...a few suggestions: 1 - Get rid of the plethora of red links under "Recommended Reading"...just add the links later, as the articles are created; 2 - a pic of George Fox near the top would be good, maybe one of William Penn later, and perhaps even a contemporary Quaker (like Richard Foster). Good article overall. KHM03 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the redlinks from the bibliography. Perhaps we could also include a photo of a meetinghouse? We have a couple of old engravings of meetinghouses floating around the articles, but it would be nice to get something more contemporary. I totally slept in today and missed meeting (and my meeting is rather boring, just a bunch of folding chairs), but perhaps some attendees could take a photograph of the layout of their meetinghouse as a contemporary example, especially if the layout is permanent (e.g., benches) to show a notable aspect of "eqalitarian" quaker theology? Sdedeo 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments.

Sdedeo, I'm thinking about the bounty in terms of what you wrote. I will try to form an opinion on it soon. Thanks for the unlinking. It certainly looks better. I agree about the picture. I am not in a position to be able to do it myself. I could ask around for a submission. KHM03, thanks for responding so quickly. I think you are right about the pictures.Logophile 03:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Texas State Highway 195

I'm new to Wikipedia and I was wondering how my article on Highway 195 could be improved or otherwise cleaned up. I was also wondering if there was a project regarding Texas state highways out there. Thank you for your consideration. Reav67 07:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways does not have a child project dealing with Texas, though there is nothing to stop you from setting one up and seeing how much interest there is. Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas is a related project. Although the article itself is still relatively small (in fact Peer review is generally used to look at articles a lot bigger) it could already benefit with being split up into sections such as "Introduction", "History" and "Current construction". Good luck with the page and welcome to Wikipedia. CheekyMonkey 14:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, write the article so that somebody outside of Texas or the US can understand and follow it. A map of the road, showing where Killeen, Georgetown, and the other roads you mention are and their relationship to one another will help orient the reader. When was the highway originally constructed? When was it originally designated a highway? Why was it built (for what purpose)? Has its dominant purpose changed over time? Are there any references to this "Highway of Death" designation or the claim that 21 died on it? There are no traffic counts? What about technical details? How wide is the right-of-way (ie. easement)? What is the highway made of? and what is it patched with? Try contacting your department of transportation or whatever dept builds the highways in Texas for info. --maclean25 20:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I Heard It Through the Grapevine

An inherently complex article, becasue it must cover several different versions of one song before it mentions the familiar one by Marvin Gaye (especially since a previous version was almost as big a hit as his). Suggestions on formatting, layout, prose, sectioning, etc. are greatly appreciated. --FuriousFreddy 02:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is a great article. You could add a short description of the lyrics as well as how they are feminized in the Gladys Knight version. -- Mwalcoff 04:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

Gwen Stefani's "Cool" has become a featured article, and I'm looking for this track to achieve the same status. Tell me anything that has to be brushed up on so I can get this thing into nomination within the next few days. Thanks a lot. --Winnermario 14:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Cool has a sound sample. Would you be able to make one for Hollaback? --bodnotbod 15:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Well besides that, because I'm still in the process of its addition. Any other comments that will add to the article? --Winnermario 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• So is Hollaback slang for "holler back", like you do in certain cheers? :) — RJH 16:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Céline Dion

The article in its current state is quite commendable. Ive worked hard on it, and Ive seeked help from a few good editors. However, I still feel that it needs a bit of work. Im quite proud of the article interms of its factual accuracy, writing style etc. A section — Entrepreneurship— still needs to be expanded. Additionally, the section following her 'return to music industry' could use a better flow (transition) between paragraphs. Any feedback (or compliments) would be appreciated. Orane (t) (c) (@) 05:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland naming dispute

This article hasn't had any recent edits which indicates it is in a rather stable state, yet it isn't very long. What do people suggest is added to the article to make it more comprehensive? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I performed a rather strict Google test. I searched the World Wide Web for the exact phrase "Northern Ireland naming dispute", excluded the word Wikipedia and there was only one result: www.copywriteireland.co.uk/agency-airline-recruitment.aspx, which I suspect is a mirror site.

In light of this I would like to ask the editors a few questions.

• Are you sure that a Northern Ireland Naming dispute exists?
• If yes, can you prove it?
• As the phrase "Northern Ireland naming dispute" is literally not used outside Wikipedia, can you think of a name that more accurately reflects the situation (assuming that one exists)?

Personally, I think that the content of the article is great. I don't know much about Northern Ireland, but I have heard everything mentioned in the article before. It seems to be NPOV as it doesn't take sides by supporting only one POV. The only recommendation I can make is that you consider changing its title to something else. I don't think that what the article is describing is a dispute. It seems to be merely variations in naming. Perhaps it could be moved to Naming variations of Northern Ireland or something like that, not that Google would find many results for that. Is there an official name or another widely used name for this naming anomaly? Izehar 23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You can see that the naming dispute exists by looking at the websites of the various political parties which organise in Northern Ireland. For example, the DUP call it "Northern Ireland" and occasionally "Ulster" on their website, while Sinn Fein call it the "Six Counties" on their website.

I don't believe there is a official governmental name for the dispute as by law the area is named Northern Ireland, and I'm not familiar with any discussion on what to call the name in the UK Parliament, the Irish Oireachtas or a governmental body. It's pretty much accepted that N.I. is the official name, but other names are used colloquially. I would argue that it is a dispute (taking dispute to mean that there are different 'factions' which disagree about something). It's probably not the best name, so any suggestions on alternate names are welcome!

Thanks for your comments, Talrias (t | e | c) 08:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Another solution to the problem would be to add the entire article contents onto a section in Northern Ireland. --bodnotbod 15:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought of that at first, but this article is too large to merge it into the Northern Ireland article. Izehar 15:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Izehar - this article could theoretically be slimmed down and merged into Northern Ireland, however I think slimming it down would mean omitting some interesting information. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Claudius

I have recently overhauled this article and would appreciate feedback from those who have been discussing it and those new to the article. LaurenCole 16:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• It looks pretty good; perhaps a little sparse on the imagery. A few places needed some cleanup but not anything significant. However I'm not sure that inline external links are a good idea, as they could suffer link rot and become useless. You might want to reference them down at the bottom instead. — RJH 17:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, RJH. Where do you typically get extra images that aren't copyright protected? The older biographies I have dont contain any pictures. As for the documents, they are already linked at the bottom, so I'll just remove them from the text. LaurenCole 20:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Any images on the community commons or in wikimedia should be okay. Sometimes I check related articles and look for suitable images. You can get out-of-copyright pictures from old library books or antiquarian books from pre-1923, US. Occasionally a site will grant you permission to use their images. You can also put something on the requested images page. :) — RJH 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Waterboys

I am nominating this article to peer review after spending a couple of weeks working on it. I am especially interested in comments from people who are not familiar with the group. Is the article interesting? Does it do its job of comprehensively explaining The Waterboys without getting into trivia? I am hoping to take the article to WP:FA after receiving your feedback. Jkelly 07:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Update -- User:Hoary, User:FuriousFreddy and User:Mel Etitis have all made some improvements. I'm still hoping for more feedback. Jkelly 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sleepy Lagoon Murder

Hi all. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and would like your advice on how to improve this article. Please feel free to make critical comments, or edits, I would appreciate the input. I also have two specific questions -- (1) I am unsure about how to handle images, have never uploaded any, and wonder what is currently public domain; and (2) is it better to have subsections, or not? I originally put them in, but I took them out today. Thanks in advance. Joaquin Murietta 06:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

1) have a look at WP:Images and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy, 2) I think it looks OK without subsections as it's a fairly short article. --bodnotbod 15:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Joaquin Murietta 16:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Eton College

One of the world's most famous schools, I'd like some feedback on how this important article can improve further to become the second school to achieve featured status on Wikipedia. Any thoughts or comments are welcomed. One area I see as needing improvement is the list of alumni - a partial list shouldn't be needed given four separate lists for alumni, and perhaps anyone living in the area could provide some GDFL pictures. Harro5 00:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Constantine Maroulis

This particular subject is not likely to be nominated as a featured article candidate in a very, very, very long time as it is kind of incomplete (As of right now, the subject has not accomplished much, other than a mere "famous for being famous."), but all I want to know is:

1. Clarity - Do the wording, word choice, and sentence structure read smoothly in a clear and concise voice?
2. NPOV - Is the article understandable in an outsider's POV? Is it free from fancruft?
3. Language - Are there any grammar issues that need to be corrected?
4. Content relevancy - Does it contain any unnecessary information that does not need to be stated?
5. Factual accuracy and validity - Does the article cite its sources?
6. TOC - Are the headings named and ordered sensibly?
7. Quality - What can be done to make it better?

because I think this article is close to feature article candidate quality, despite the subject's incompetence. --Lehla 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I found it interesting and easy to read. Maybe you should take out the "Early career" subheading as it seems strange only having one Astrokey44 11:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Also expanded lead section. Lehla 12:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)----

I think the pray for the soul of betty infobox should definitely be taken out. That belongs on a band page on nowhere else. (See Jack White versus The White Stripes or Kurt Cobain versus Nirvana (and the Nirvana article is a featured article).--Esprit15d 14:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the band page has been redirected to Constantine. I not sure how that decision came about, and I didn't see any talk information on it on the band page. I find that a little surprising, but I think it is a little thematically cluttered like that and until Betty does more, or Constantine does more, (so there will be a solid reason to separate the two), it won't be fac quality. But I could be wrong.--Esprit15d 14:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw the merge tag on Pray for the soul of betty so I merged it. It's back on its own article now. --Lehla 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How can someone have a "recurring" on American Idol? That doesn't make sense. You're either in the competition, or you're not. You don't just pop up from time to time. That needs to be reworded. Harro5 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sex symbol claim

Taken from the first paragraph of the article:

Maroulis was the seventh finalist voted off of the music reality series, however he gained a reputation as a national sex symbol; having performed well-received renditions of "Bohemian Rhapsody", "My Funny Valentine" and "How You Remind Me".

How exactly is Maroulis a "sex symbol"? This particular sentence does not bode well with me, it reads as an opinionated statement sandwiched between two completely unrelated facts. It is unclear how being an American Idol finalist or performing cover songs makes one a sex symbol, nor do I see a credible source provided which supports such a claim. Can this be resolved? Hall Monitor 17:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the last half of that sentence but I agree it needs to be rephrased and cited. Same thing with the gay icon claim. Where are the sources for these kind of things? This site talks about getting Constantine's hair, one of hundreds of google search results talking about Constantine and his "sex icon" status. There was also a news segment on Access about it, something about "hollywood's newest sex icon". It doesn't say he obtain sex icon status solely because of the song performances. --Lehla

Delrina

Self-nomination. Name of the firm that was best known for producing WinFax software, prior to it being bought out by Symantec ten years ago this month. An influential Canadian software company with a lot of interesting history. Have built this article to what I think is approaching Feature Article quality, but would like it peer reviewed.

Would like to know:

• what is it missing?
• does anybody care about the firms financials? Would that be useful info to throw in?
• does a non-encyclopedic POV intrude in terms of tone or voice?
• what would make it better?

Also, go easy on the requests for additional images -- after 10 years it is surprisingly hard to come up with relevant box shots/screenshots, etc. Captmondo 15:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

just one thing, the red links in the opening paragraph dont look great Astrokey44 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that -- will plug those gaps as soon as I am able to. Captmondo 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Now done. Captmondo 15:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a few copy edits to this article, & hope that made the text flow more smoothly. I didn't think that the tone of voice in the present version intruded at all. Wikipedia must be having some problems because I couldn't view some of the images,for example that "About" screen capture, but if it does show the pictures of the programmers, then it would be quite a prize: an old easter egg!

As an OT personal note, that does explain something about one of my first jobs in the computer industry, as a phone tech. At the time I supported PC Tools (which had been bought by Symantec & was effectively EOLed); next to our group were the 2 guys who supported WinFax LITE (also EOLed). This article shows that all of us were working under a contract Corporate Software (which later became Stream) with Symantec. -- llywrch 17:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, but there are too many red links throughout the article, are the external links also references?, the company infobox could be a possible thing to add (see an example of the company infobox in good use on Microsoft or IBM) Looking good so far, keep it up. — Wackymacs 10:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the company infobox suggestion -- duly added (though I note there is little support in this format for companies which no longer exist). Will start working on the remaining dead links. And yes, many of the external links are also references -- is that a problem? Captmondo 15:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. I asked about the references because the title of that section was wrong. I have changed it to 'External links and References'. The company infobox looks good. Once the red links are gone, this might just qualify to become a featured article, but I think too many sentences are too short. — Wackymacs 15:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Have spent the necessary work "plugging the holes" so to speak with many of the formerly dead links from the Delrina main article page, as suggested. This includes links to the company's former principles, such as Bert Amato, Mark Skapinker, Tony Davis and Dennis Bennie; descriptive links (and screenshots!) of some of the products not already covered off, like Cyberjack, TalkWorks and WinComm. There's a few more to go, but they will be tackled shortly. Will beef up the main Delrina article with additional info tomorrow (or soon-ish at any rate) in the hope that I can overcome the "short sentence" problem you refer to -- which I assume means that the article is a bit too thin on detail at times (right?).

Rhapta

This article attracted a flurry of interest when it appeared on the Main Page as part of DYK, & saw a number of improvements -- but since then, it has sat almost untouched. As it now stands, does the article competently cover the topic? Are there any points that obviously need be added? Or has it remained stable for so long because it does a competent job? -- llywrch 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems too short, given a biblography that long. Also, it would be a good idea to make it clear what parts of the article are coming from what sources. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The cinnamon stick image doesnt seem very relevant to the article, at least you could explain in the caption that they were traded there Astrokey44 14:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ubykh language

I read this article and I thought it was really well-written, and I would like to know what others think. --Hottentot 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It does say alot about the language, but why does it have the cite sources tag when it has about eight references at the bottom? Astrokey44 14:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would try to make this article more accessible to a general audience. Most people are not familiar with linguistic terms and should not have to learn all of them before reading an overview of a language. I think you might be able to make the article easier to read without dumbing it down by briefly explaining what the terms mean and by giving examples and comparing them to English. -- Mwalcoff 05:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Northwest Territories capitals

Former Featured List Candidate nomination failed do to lack of interest, with no oppose votes. It was suggested that this article is not much of a list by one person, but could be improved to a real feature standard article by another. Since I created researched and for the most part, with a little help here and there got this article to where it is, i am kinda out of ideas. So I yield the floor. --Cloveious 00:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You should rename it ot "Capitals of the Nortwest Territories" or "Northwest Territories Capitals". It's not really a list. Other than that I can't really think of any improvements; it's a good article. Luigizanasi 03:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I will rename the article at the conclusion of the peer review process --Cloveious 06:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The writing is concise but doesn't flow well at points. Consider expanding the intro to discuss what the capital means to the Northwest Territories (government functions it performed). Try re-orienting the page so that it conveys more of a list format like this List of Northwest Territories capitals/temp. Add an image of Ottawa and Fort Smith for consistency. --maclean25 07:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting layout. I could not find what I thought was a relevant image for Ottawa or Fort Smith, Ideally I want a picture of the building on Sparks street where the Northwest Territories assembly sat, but i'm not sure if the current office on sparks street is where the assembly was. Let me dig around, of course if anyone in Ottawa could go snap a picture of the current building for the NWT office in Ottawa that would work for me. For Fort Smith I'm not sure what to show but let me dig around. Also if anyone has a public domain image of the current Northwest Territories legislature building I would gladly change out the photo. --Cloveious 22:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I expanded the opening paragraph, to try and convey meaning to what a capital means to the Northwest Territories. --Cloveious 06:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Being the capital city would mean there would be a migration of 'skilled' labour (ie. bureaucrats) to the city to run government programs. What programs were run from the capital? What was the capital city's relationship with the rest of the Territories? Did the capital's location have any effects on the rest of the Territories (ie. was the goverment's attention focused on certain parts of the Territories, meaning other places were ignored)? --maclean25 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Fort Smith picture! I will see what I can come up with on those questions --Cloveious 08:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Geography of the Yukon

I wrote this article a couple of months ago. Upon re-reading it, I believe it is a pretty good piece of work that could also serve as a template for other Canadian provincial/territorial geography articles which are either missing or incomplete. I just added a bit more stuff including references.Any comments and suggestions would be welcome. I have one which I am unable to fulfill: I believe the list of mountain ranges would benefit from a map, but I don't have the appropriate software to make one; assistance would be appreciated here. Luigizanasi 18:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• The first sentence, "The Yukon Territory is in the northwestern corner of Canada." doesn't capture the essence of the article. Outside this article (this is a complaint about Wikipedia, not this article), more work needs to be done on developing the features of geography. The FA list shows that most of the work has been done on places and the Geography/Geology of foo and not on the geographic features/divisions like Boreal Cordillera Ecozone. Anyways back the PR, check the wikilinks; "Yukon" and "Whitehorse" only need be wikilinked once, or few times if you want. Definately needs some maps or illustrations of the section topic. See the FA Geography of India as an example.

--maclean25 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Harrow School

This article is a featured article on the Schools Portal and could do with a few style checks by more experienced wikipedians than I so that it can conform to some of the harder to define qualities of a featured article. As a current pupil at Harrow School I personally cannot think of much more to add and some of my comments may by their nature be biased. Any help or critiscm would be appreciated. It would be great if this was featured as there are few featured education articles and Harrow is such and interesting school especially to those who have never before really known about the UK private education system. (n.b. this is a [sort-of] self-nomination) --Oli 22:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the editing people have been doing to the Harrow article (especiall Chriscf)- its been really helpful. Keep up the good work. Can I also add that it would be useful if editors who don't know much about this topic have a read and give their impressions on the dicussion page, in particular style, how interesting it was and what needs doing for it to be a featured article. --Oli 18:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A great article, and I was happy to feature it on the Schools Portal. I'm wondering why there isn't much on the history of what is obviously a very famous school, as this seems to all be covered in the opening lead paragraph and should be fleshed out more. I'd also like to see short phrases to outline the importance of the Notable Harrovians (eg. 13th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) so people don't necessarily need to read their articles. Obviously, the images are a problem. The pics of the school are copyrighted, and doen't have good usage rationales. I'd suggest that you Oli are a student at the school and should easily be able to get your hands on a digital camera and take some good shots of the campus. I'll add more comments if I think of them, but you're on the right track. Harro5 00:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will do some investigation in the school archives on the history and will take some photos of my own to upload.--Oli 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

List of NFL champions

Seems to meet criteria the criteria for a FA to me, especially when compared to current featured article List of Super Bowl champions. I'm wondering what more needs to be done before this can be nominated for FA status. It's not my article, I'm not associated with it any more than through the NFL WikiProject. jfg284 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks very good to me. You could probably nominate it already for featured list here: WP:FLC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• The only thing I question is whether it is smart to simply have pictures piling up down the right hand side. I think the NFL logo, the main image for the page, is dwarfed when surrounded by the other pictures, and there is also a bit of a Packers bias in the team featuring in three of the photos - the pic of the team logo is definitely not needed. I'd stick with images of famous matches (eg. the Ice Bowl pic) That's the only issue really. Harro5 05:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• An excellent page. I would separate out the last four championships and indicate that the winners played in the Super Bowl. Also, since the 1939 game was not played in Green Bay, I'd put the city in parentheses after the name of the stadium. Finally, some of the games have articles on them, so there should be links to them. -- Mwalcoff 05:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

BASIC programming language

This article is one of the most popular based on page views, it should become featured. - cohesion★talk 05:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you check an article's page views? Scifiintel 13:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I scanned through this article with a few things in mind, they were all there and more. Seems to be a thorough, coherent, excellent article. One very slight thing - I wonder if all the versions of basic could be organized into some kind of summary, or heirarchical presentation, maybe even by release date. --RichG 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• I rephrased some section titles. I had a minor quibble with their tone. Also, the lead needs expanding if this is going to be a featured article. Nicely referenced piece of work. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I too wish to know how you check an article's page views. --bodnotbod 15:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

I understand that this article may not be ready yet for featured article status. A couple of weeks ago this article has gone on a massive diet. The change is somewhat controversial; there're some like me who feel that the change has been too concise and drastic. (A pre-edited version is here [2]. Immediate post-edition version by User:Iago Dali is here [3]. User Iago Dali has since gone on to use the same treatment on many other literary articles) Since then it has gained back a few pounds :-), mainly worked back by User:The Singing Badger and User:Alabamaboy. However, in the early days it was still too concise for me, and I make a few noises about it being too dumbed-down; happily (to me) this article has began to put on more weight than previously. It is agreed on the talk page to bring it here to see which direction this article can move so as to gain FAC status. (Particularly, if there's anything in the pre-edited state at [1] that needs to be brought back.)

Also, if possible, please comment on the treatment used by User Iago Dali, since he has applied this "slimming" treatment to many literary articles, like Hermann Melville, Anton Chekhov, Charles Dickens (some of which are partially reverted). It's a matter of some concern as he does not seem to be open to criticism, insisting that his edits are truly for the better.Mandel 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The latter half of the article is too much of a list. Deryck C. 08:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that the latter half of the article is too much of a list. The problem, though, is that the article would be massively long if we included something on all of the plays and associated works. Any thoughts on how to get around this? (And, for what it's worth, this was a problem of the original article [4] and the current version.) I also think the following sections of the article need to be expanded: The sonnets section, other poems section, and the style section. I'd also like to see a section on his contributions to the English language (such as the large number of sayings he coined). I also wonder if the article needs any sections on the Elizabethan era and the Elizabethan theatre (any thoughts on this). I also hope that this peer review focuses on this article and doesn't turn into a debate on Iago Dali. That is a subject for a discussion at another location.--Alabamaboy 16:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The peer review must include something about Iago Dali, since it's his contributions Alabamaboy based his rewrites on. Unless one finds what Iago does unalarming, we must have some consensus about what to do when Iago goes on his "slimming" ways. There's no guarantee he'll not put the Shakespeare article on diet again.
  • How long is too long? Mandel 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Those rewrites aren't mine alone. The Singing Badger and other editors have joined in on the work. A peer review is to discuss the current article and see ways in which it can be improved. It is not to debate another user. Besides, the differences between the original article and the current article are not that great. The Singing Badger, myself, and others added back a lot of the info Iago cut and added in a new section and info that had previously been missing (such as anything on Shakespeare's poetry). Anyway, let's keep this discussion on focus to improve the article.--Alabamaboy 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking them to comment on Iago as an editor, I'm asking them to comment on Iago's contributions in the Shakespeare article. Besides, if Iago's contributions hamper the article's FAC status, then it is invariably tie up with the peer review. Mandel 17:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Which of Iago's edits do you want undone? We've already undone a number of them (see comment below) while trying to keep the idea of focusing the article better. At this point, the article is very different from what Iago did and is actually closer to the original article, although its much more focused and has a lot of info that wasn't in the original version. IMHO, reverting the article is not an option. There are also comments from other editors that the article is now much better than before. But if there are specific parts of Iago's cuts that you want reinserted, let us know and we'll try to add that info in. But we need specifics to do this. --Alabamaboy 12:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• This sounds a little more like a request for comment instead of a peer review. For the record, IMHO the editing was much too harsh and probably should have been reverted. InvictaHOG 04:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Iago did indeed edit too much. That's why myself and other editors reinserted much of the missing info while keeping some of the streamlining of the article, breaking sections that were too large into their own articles, and also adding a lot of new information. Other editors have commented that while they also felt Iago did too much cutting, the article is now much better b/c of the attention given to it. If I'd had my preference, Iago would have gone about his edits in a different way (I raised some of these issues on his talk page). The point of this request, though, is to improve the article further. --Alabamaboy 12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

South India

I came across this page today while looking for information on Diwali and I'm very impressed. In my opinion it's already featured-article material, but it's good to get some other people's feedback first. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• It is good, yes. Some parts may be overstated and therefore subtly POV. For instance, "The south Indian people have a world view which is organic and celebrates the generative ethos of the natural world." Well, there are Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Sikhs in South India. It's probably overstated to ascribe a single worldveiw to all people in the region. And again "The South Indian world view is essentially, the celebration of the eternal universe through the celebration of the beauty of the body and motherhood." Sounds a bit too simplified. Also, I think the diet part could be expanded upon. I would merge the "South Indian heritage" subsections, since they are very short. The History part should be longer, and perhaps other parts (like info on the 5 states) should be shortened. There are little ways that it could be better organized or standardized: like saying "Main article: whatever" where there is one, instead of "More information on. . .". It's close though. People will also predictably complain that there are no references. So find places that make a verifiable statement of fact (e.g. "the most species-abundant ecoregion of the Indian peninsula" or "Some of the main crops cultivated in South India include. . .") and cite specific sources. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Very well done with nice images, Two of the images in the "Tamil Nadu" section dont seem to be working though. Havent got rid of them in case its just my computer Astrokey44 12:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, two images were deleted because they lacked source information. I've removed the links to them. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• For your references (notwithstanding the bibliography), you should use the style in the FA Angkor Wat or the FAC Mandan as a good model and example. You should import that article's style of inline citation and standardized listing of references. Also, references should be categorized by type (book, online news, documents, etc.). Saravask 10:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Malta

I believe this article is potentially an article which should fall under the category of featured articles. Maltesedog 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Take a look at some already featured counrties like Bhutan and Australia, this article should attempt to conform to a similar structure including the topics covered in the various sections and refernces so that the reader can verify infromation if they want to.--nixie 05:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • What do you think now Maltesedog 19:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seems a little sparse on photos. Karmafist 01:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here a several key things that need to be worked on:

1. Economic history should be summaried and merged into Economics
2. Tourism can probably also be merged into economics
3. Education should be merged into demographics, demographics should also mention religious participation and languages spoken
4. Culture should be expanded into several paragraphs- Maltese art and literature, music, festivals, sports, cuisine, tranditional dress (if there is one) and media should all be described in some detail
5. The external links section needs to be cleaned up to include link only direclt relevant to the topic.
6. The lead section is also a bit short.

--nixie 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Marching band

I didn't start this article, but I have helped it incrementally here and there. I do believe there are some improvements that can be made, but overall I feel it's a good article and it fairly represents the facts and depth of this fairly broad subject. Fsiler 08:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Needs more references and a longer lead paragraph. The article is quite long, so even two lead paragraphs might more suitable. — Wackymacs 10:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input, but I'm afraid "references" may be difficult to come by. Individual bands (such as the Marching Illini) sometimes have manuals detailing rules, procedures, marching styles, playing tips, etc., but as far as I know there are no compiled volumes listing uniform styles, marching steps, and all the other things involved. I expect that most of the meaningful content on this page is from life experiences of the editors. Fsiler 19:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• For an article to become featured, it must cite its sources. This a requirement. I understand the difficulty. But, the information in the article must have come from somewhere, so where is it from? Were any websites, books or anything else used for writing the article? Even news stories, if they were used, can be listed in a References section. — Wackymacs 21:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• If this were an article about some scientific subject with papers and lectures and presentations, it would be no problem to come up with sources. However, this subject is documented mostly in the minds of people who participate in and observe it. What sources do we have? Hundreds of thousands of present and former marching band members, and their friends, family, and associates. I'm aware of one published manual for a specific band. This is a craft learned by doing, not by reading. Fsiler 21:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

For rules, I would try taking a look at any information put out by Drum Corps International [5]. They are arguably the most famous governing body for any marching competition, and they should have some good information regarding their trade. I will read over this article and comment further once I'm through with my review on The West Wing. -Scm83x 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nashua, New Hampshire

I think it has a shot at making it to Featured Status, but here's what I see needing to happen before we get there.

• 2 or 3 more pictures, at least one of a school.
• Alot more info on the schools(will look into the Wikiproject on Schools with this)
• Maybe a few more subarticles
• Perhaps another section (Parks? Local Landmarks? Famous People?)
• A little more on politics, due to the New Hampshire Primary situation.

What do you all think? Karmafist 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) First Peer Review can be found here

• References is one thing (not only because it is a requirement for FA, but also to allow others to verify the article's content). The lists in the education section should be turned into prose. A minor thing I have a problem with is the table of state representatives. I think it is better just to mention how many districts there are since representatives change with each election. Climate and a map of Nashua in New Hampshire can also help. Pentawing 04:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Another thing I noticed is the large use of historical images. I would prefer more images of Nashua as it appears today. Pentawing 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

After glancing at the article here's what I see that is needed:

• The intro should be at least 2-3 good-sized paragraphs in length.
• The history section needs expansion. A city with as much history as Nashua has should have a longer section. There should be mention of Native Americans in the area as well.
• The geography section also needs expansion. Discuss the lay of the land, is it hilly? Flat? Some of this information can be taken from the geography section of the article on the state of New Hampshire.
• There should be a section on cultural activites in the city. Include music, theatre, literature, any details of that nature.
• Of the seven images, only two are recent images. There should be many more recent photos. By no means get rid of the older photos, they are great, just show the city as it is now. In addition, vary the size of the photos so they all aren't so small.

You have a great foundation to build a featured article! Bon chance! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine

Of all of the current Star Wars articles, this one seems to be the most complete and accurate. It has been greatly contributed to and sourced. Please make any comments as to the lack of content or issues with quality in this article. The Wookieepedian 11:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, pretty impressive. This article is long, has plenty of pictures and references, and seems to be written well. But because this article is so long, the lead paragraphs need to be a lot lot longer than they currently are. — Wackymacs 11:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks very nice! A few issues, though:

1. To properly introduce the article, the lead needs to discuss both Palpatine as a character in a fictional work and Palpatine as a "real" person in the Star Wars universe; it currently omits the latter. I'm not sure how to do this without putting too many spoilers in place, though, so it might not be feasible.
2. Some section titles don't conform to the MoS: "The ..." and unusual capitalization are present in some places.
3. More precise referencing (either inline or via footnotes) would help for all of the "Some fans ..." sections; some of these statements are obvious, others not — and the not-so-obvious ones really do need to be cited. The same is true for much of the character history; with so many references, it's helpful to indicate which one facts are being taken from.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Are "memorable quotes" really necessary? Can that Frank Lautenberg incident be referenced or an ext.link provided? Can the "Palpatine's influence on culture" be referenced or are they just general observations? Maybe turn those [6] citations into footnotes with the ext link in the footnote, or give them a word instead of a number. How are the references ordered (is that alphabetical or chronological)? Maybe makes those footnotes go down to the references section. That could be very useful in the "Palpatine in the Expanded Universe" section, to link BookA^[7] of topic to the reference of A^ . Otherwise, it is a comprehensive, well-written article. It just needs some balance between the excellent (fictional) biography and the hodge-podge of real-world influences/debate/commentary. Perhaps see Batman or Dalek for a FA on a fictional character. --maclean25 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Someone may wish to investigate whether so many screenshots are acceptable as fair use. Currently the image upload dropdown menu specifies that "one per article" is the limit for screenshots. --bodnotbod 09:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not bad...not bad at all. I did a bit of copyediting, but there are a few more issues:

1. As noted on the talk page, which picture of Palpatine talking to vader in ESB that is in the article? make a note of this in the caption.
2. You site alot of sources at the end, but there are few external links in the article.
3. I saw some great ideas on the talk page; take a look!

Hope that helps! HereToHelp (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Karin Sowada

I wrote this a few weeks ago as part of the Women in the Australian Senate project, and have tried to get people to look over it so far to little avail. Any feedback would be appreciated; though a picture is out of the question due to Australian copyright issues. Ambi 11:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• A picture is not necessary for an article to become featured, however References are. The article is missing a references section. It seems to be written quite well and it is quite long as well. — Wackymacs 11:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• A very good article only spoiled by the utter lack of references or indeed any external links save to her official website. Regarding a picture, do you simply mean that we can't do fair use with Australian-sourced pictures, or is there some other law restricting it even if we got a Wikipedian to stalk her with a camera? —Morven 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What sort of external links were you thinking of? We simply can't do fair use with Australian-sourced pictures is the problem with images; one way we've got around this is for a Wikipedian to stalk people with a camera, but this is hard for someone who is largely out of public life these days. Ambi 17:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well the biggest concern is references/external links, but a picture sure would be nice. Why can we not do fair-use with Australian pictures? I'm sure there are plenty of Australian source pictures on Wikipedia that are fair-use. Can you not get permission from the website that has the picture of her? — Wackymacs 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What sort of external links were you looking for? (I know references need doing, but that's always a bit difficult the way I write articles (from a couple of hundred newspaper articles)). The problem is that Australian law doesn't recognise fair use, which puts us in a whole messy grey area that we haven't yet worked out a response to. Getting permission may have been possible, but getting that released under GFDL would be particularly difficult. Ambi 18:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • External links such as a link to a biography on another website, or a photo on another website, etc. External links are usual for users who wish to read more and read stuff on other websites too. — Wackymacs 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Official images of Australian senators are copyright the Australian government, but fair use still applies in the U.S. (where Wikipedia's file servers are). There's no legal reason not to have use the official photo, so long as fair use requirements are met. Also, here's a news article about her. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Apple Macintosh

This article has been through the Article Improvement Drive, and now I'm putting it up for peer review. I see that it is still lacking References, sadly; but is there anything else that could be improved? There is a to-do list at the article's talk page. It is certainly one of the best pages about a line of personal computers on Wikipedia. What do you think? — Wackymacs 07:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is one article from a 1994 (?) issue of Popular Science entitled "Insanely Great" that talked about the development of the original Mac. So far, this article looks okay, but I'll look into it in more details later. Pentawing 21:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• The eMac is being described as an 'eduactional institute only model' on this page, which is, as of now, not the case anymore. eMacs originally were sold only for educational purposes, but not long after the introduction, Apple decided to normally sell eMacs as well (and still does so, see the Apple Store). I guess some rephrasing would be in place there. Joost 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Also, I have the following points of criticism:
  1. The Mac Mini is described as a 'CPU that requires monitors and peripherals not included to function', which is technically inaccurate. The case that is the Mac Mini is quite a bit more than just a microprocessor.
  2. It is written that "In 2000, the Macintosh made a second fundamental change, this time in its operating system, by switching to the Mach and BSD Unix-based Mac OS X, from the original Pascal based Mac OS.". The old Mac OSes are not "Pascal based" any more than the new Mac OS would be "C based" (with most of BSD and the Mach kernel being written in C). Being written in a certain programming language is something quite different from being based upon another OS, and because of this the whole phrasing "Pascal based Mac OS" seems inaccurate.
  3. Under the caption 'Software' there is a link to Mac OS X as main article. Shouldn't this be a link to Mac OS (without X) under the caption 'Operating System'?
  4. Also, under the caption 'Software history' there is a link to Mac OS history as main article, even though all of the content of that section is about application software for Macs, rather than about the history of the operating system (which is treated briefly under the 'Operating system' caption). I guess it would be better not to have any main article here at all (unless there is an article specifically dealing with the history of application software for Macintoshes, which I doubt). Joost 23:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm now working on this article and am beginning to revise much of it. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fabio Lione

A long time ago I rewrote this article and got it this far, now I thought I might as well take it further and put it onto peer review, and eventually enter it as a FAC. What can be done now? I am thinking about an extension to the lead paragraph, and an addition of References, what else? — Wackymacs 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Ashes series

In what is perhaps the closest Ashes series in this storied rivalry between England and Australia, the former won the Ashes again for the first time in 18 years. Surely it should try for an FA nod, but we need help, and a review. Non-cricket fans can help too... --J L C Leung 11:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is very long. Looks good. But it only has two references, this is very poor for such a long article. More pictures would be nice. Good work.— Wackymacs 14:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its long and the information has to be summarised. Rather than having specific instances of what happened on each day, just summarise how each day went for the teams. The subheadings need to be removed. Those inline references should be collected at the bottom by using the footnote style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be good to have a brief summary of what happened in the subject line rather than just "Day one" etc. Astrokey44 13:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Swans

Aussie Rules rocks, and the Swans rock even harder. If the Arsenal FC can get their article into FA status, then we Swannies ought to try for it too. Take a shot... J L C Leung 10:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It needs a references section and an improvement to the lead paragraph, two lead paragraphs would do better for this article. It also seems to be lacking context, and I can see a lot of red links. A lot of the article is taken up by a large table listing Honor Roll. The history section is missing quite a bit of info, what happened in the 20s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s ? In the third paragraph of the History section, in the first line, it says On 31 July 1985, for what was thought to be $6.3 million, Dr Geoffrey Edelsten "bought" the Swans... Can you clarify the amount, and why is bought in apostrophes? Did he buy it or do something else? — Wackymacs 14:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Irna Phillips

I have been trying to beef up this article and added it to nomination for the biographical collaboration. I would like to know what others think of the way it is strutured, check the prose and grammar, and fact check by individuals who are more knowedable about her than I am ( I have mostly utilized the books "Worlds Without End", "Prime Time, Prime Movers", & "All Her Children". I do not have access to a copy of Harding LeMay's autobiograph 8 Years in Another World so if anyone has a copy of that and can find some good information to add it would be great. I am also hoping someone can add more information from interviews with William J. Bell who looks to have had much more prolonged contact with her than Agnes Nixon who in 1976 shortly after Phillips' death actually comes off a little bitter (albeit stil very greatful) of the treatment she received from her mentor when she moved to New York (okay I know Nixon lives in Pencilvania but still her shows are made there and just like Phillips she frequenly made the train trip). Thanks for any assistance. Dowew 02:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Queenston Heights

Having scrawled a large part of this article in its current form while I was bored at high school an awful long time ago, I find myself wondering 'gee, I wonder if this could be a featured article someday'. And the answer, as I read the thing, is probably 'no' but I can't figure out what's wrong with it. So I figured I'd ask the community. Lord Bob 17:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a very good start. Some suggestions:

• Sections headings are needed, with a brief summary of the battle at the beginning, as well as a statement of its importance.
• A "background" section or paragraph is needed, letting readers know the overall strategic situation before the battle.
• A map would be nice, though of course good public domain ones are hard to come by unless you make one yourself, which is time consuming, though not difficult.
• Both references are by Canadian authors. Some American scholarly input would be good.
• A book came out recently, supposedly the first full-length one about this battle (A Very Brilliant Affair: The Battle of Queenstown Heights, 1812). It really ought to be a part of this article.
• Missing are various details, such as General Alexander Smyth (not mentioned) refusing to cooperate in the operation as requested by Stephen Van Rensselaer III, and Rensselaer's resignation after the battle.

Keep at it! --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Lord Bob. :) What Kevin said. I'd also suggest mentioning (perhaps with a photo or two?) the Queenston Heights park & the current Brock monument, and the history of the prior monument. The latter was at one time the tallest structure in the Empire, and one of the very few targets of a bombing in Ontario. But I'm not NPOV on this, having sat on General Brock's stone cold shoulder while a student at Brock U. :) Good luck with the FA campaign! Cheers, Madmagic 20:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Better than very good start. I would like to echo Kevin Myers' comments. I think it is pretty important to have a beginning paragraph which briefly describes the battle, its outcome and significance. A map would be nice, especially indicating the many places in the Niagara peninsula that may not be familiar to most reader. Good job, well on its way to being a featured article. Luigizanasi 18:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your terrific input. I haven't been able to track down a public domain map yet, and I might end up drawing my own if it comes to it. Plus, I still haven't grabbed any American sources (it's the weekend and I'm not keen on zipping in to the University library to dig some up, so I used what I have). However, I did just expand on the background and the aftermath of the battle, as well as add a few section headings in there. So it's a start. Lord Bob 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Here is a public domain image, if you want to use it. Also, if you'd like to draw a map, the following three (probably copyrighted) maps should help you: 1, 2, and 3. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Department store

This article is obviously far from FA status, and its in obvious need of expansion, but I don't know what to add to it. Not long ago I cleaned up this article, added some photos, and it doesn't look bad, it just needs more content. Any suggestions? — Wackymacs 13:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a bit clunky - too much use of the work "retail", instead of "sell". Move the US-specific paragraph to a separate section, alongside the UK one. Perhaps have a separate section on discount department stores. Move the country-specific section out of "History". Explain why the Hudson Bay Company wouldn't be considered a department store nowadays. Bluap 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response, I have moved the US info to a new section as a subsection of a "Countries" section. I have added a reason for the statement made about Hudson Bay Company. I made a slight change to the lead paragraph. I'm not too sure what to write about discount department stores, I can't seem to find much about them around the Internet. — Wackymacs 15:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've written a short section about discount department stores. — Wackymacs 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dept. stores were high class places in the 1950s. Conspicuous consumption was rampant and appearances (symbols of wealth) meant a lot. Departments stores were built like palaces and offered extensive high class services. There would be elevator and bathroom attendants, men in tuxedos playing the piano in the make-up section and jazz in the dining room. Their target audience for their serices was married women (they had facilities to take care of the children while the women shopped). However, a lot of their advertising and outward appearance was oriented towards men. The dept. stores wanted the man to know his wife was well taken care of (and safe from the poor people in the city) while he was at work. However, as affluent people left the city for the suburbs, the businesses followed. Rents in the city declined and cheaper (lower-class) stores moved in. Many women became trapped in their suburban homes, others entered the workforce themselves. The dept. stores adapted by going into suburban malls ... and so forth.

I'd help out more but I won't get my school notes back for a few months (Jan?). The topic has a lot of overlap with women's studies and urban history. It really needs a trip to the library. There are many academic journal articles on the subject. Try these sources:

• Women
• 1920s
• Pre- and post-1950s trends in canada and austraila
• Bourgeois Utopias: Visions of Suburbia by Robert Fishman (why is that link red?)
• Cities and Buildings by Robert Fishman ---maclean25 06:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• • As a comment to what maclean25 wrote above: Please remember that the suburbanization of the middle class is mainly an American phenomenon. The situation is different in various European cities; I don't want to generalize as I have my own systemic bias, but please just keep this in mind when researching and writing. Tupsharru 11:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

TGV

Maybe too technical? Not enough book references?

Looks good—not too technical at all; I'd be surprised if references can't be solely Internet ones. Good pics. I'll run through it some time soon. Tony 13:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• An excellent article that is quite approachable and is not too technical at all. You'll probably get dinged for lack of references and the bulleted lists. Reviewers usually prefer that you replace the later with normal prose, which usually isn't too difficult. I did get to ride on the TGV a couple of times; very nice, amazingly quiet, and quite smooth. There is (or, at least, was at the time) a track guage difference between France and Spain, so at the border crossing they had a stop where they adjusted the wheel spacing on the cars. — RJH 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The gauge difference exists for "normal" speed trains. The high speed trains in Spain use the same gauge as in France. David.Monniaux 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. Well it's been a while so my memory was a little fuzzy. ;-) — RJH
• Bullet points scrapped. A couple of references added - TGVweb is quite extensive. Willkm 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• I like it. Nice job. Fsiler 10:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's good, but there's still work to be done before I would support it as an FAC:
  • I've gone through a couple sections with a copyedit, adding unit conversions and   characters between the measurements and their units. There is probably more that could be done in this regard, and I'll work on this part more as I have time.
  • The History section is too short compared to the infrastructure detail. Compare the history section here with the design and construction section of Pioneer Zephyr for an idea of what I'm thinking about.
    • Added some content to the History section. Willkm 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There are far too few references for an article of this length. With a train type as famous as this, I would think that print references would be a requirement. I'll see what I've got in my own library this week.
  • The lead section does not adequately summarize the entire article. With an article this long, I would expect the lead to be three paragraphs, with more detail on the background, history, construction and infrastructure all in the lead.
    • Added some content to the lead section Willkm 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'll probably find a few more things that I can help out with as I go through it more. slambo 15:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've gone through it with a copyedit, moved the pictures so they more closely relate to the text that borders them and added the comparison table. I've also started the Criticisms section with information about the protest in Milan earlier this week. There have got to be more criticisms than that over the system's 40 year history, and it needs to be expanded before we try for featured status. Also, with the Track and Rolling stock sections as big as they are, I wonder if we should split them out into a subarticle (such as TGV infrastructure, and keep summary information from it here) and place more emphasis here on the history and politics of the service. slambo 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title I

My goal is to summarise each of the Titles of the PATRIOT Act. As the USA PATRIOT Act currently stands, it doesn't really give details of what is covered by the law. I hope to create summaries of each of the ten titles and then we can work back with summaries in the main article. Yes, topsy turvy I know but necessary. My comment on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act stands. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a very good start, and will be a valuable addition to wikipedia. I've gone through it and done some copyedits/rewrites, trying to simplify and tighten the language without losing any of the essentials. Brandon39 17:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good so far. The comments I can offer are not really limited to this article, but to the entire series in general. First of all, there are some sections in the USA PATRIOT Act that are contentious to some people. I am not up on what all of those sections are (I do know there's one I disagree with about searches of library records, though I think it was weakened recently). In any case, though, I think any contentious section should have a good bit on the media coverage surrounding it. I don't see that in this article, but maybe there are no contentious sections yet. The other thing I'd say is not really an article comment per se, but I think it would be helpful to have some sort of navigation box for all of these by the time you are done. --Jacqui ^{★ 04:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)}

Cool. Maybe an email to the EFF or the ACLU may be in order for more material? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Pneumonia

Article has recently been improved a lot by the medicine collaboration of the week. Would be nice to get some feedback especially from people with a non-medical background. The article has had a peer review before that has been archived here. Hope to get some good feedback and maybe this could be a FAC soon. --WS 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi. :) This is a comprehensive article that was, for the most part, easy for a person with a non-medical background to read. I felt that the exception was the section called Causes of pneumonia; I can't decide if it's all the Latin phrases with no explanation, or the density of the links that's causing me a problem. I am thinking that making that section into an annotated list, or perhaps changing up the prose a bit to make it less link-heavy and with a bit more contextual information, would be helpful.

One other set of comments I will offer have nothing to do with the prose itself; it's the pictures. They're well-chosen and generally quite clear. I would say that it would create some more visual interest on the page to not have them all on the right side. And this last bit is especially nit-picky, but -- the first diagram is very clear, but to read it, I had to navigate away from the main page because some of the text was too small to read at that resolution, and it took a bit for the bigger one to load. When one is on a slow Internet connection or at a public terminal, waiting for the larger version of that picture to load up may cause some users to log off altogether.

I hope this didn't come off as too negative; I am relatively new to peer review. :) Feel free to comment on my talk page for any other questions/concerns. --Jacqui ^{★ 05:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)}

Don't apologize! Thank you for the input; if there were no criticisms, then the article would not get any better. I've worked on the layout - I had never experimented with the left side of the page, so you ended up opening a whole new world for me! The lead image is only 65kb, so I think it's more of a wikipedia loading issue. I went back to see if I could make all the words large enough on the original image and I think it would be too crowded, unfortunately. As for the causes of pneumonia, I am a bit unhappy with it as well. With over 100 microorganisms we could put there, choosing the important themes and some notable exceptions has been difficult. I'll give it another shot, though. Thanks again! InvictaHOG 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the causes section a little. It can't ever be clear of Latin/Greek, but hopefully it reads a little better now with some explanation! InvictaHOG 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• It looks quite good with the slight exception of the Pathophysiology section that has the odd bulleted-sections format, which is at variance with the format of the remainder. I didn't see anything in the article addressing the issue of reoccurance, which supposedly significantly increases your odds of acquiring pneumonia again once you've had it. Did I miss that somewhere? If not, could you cover that topic? Thanks. — RJH 14:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I converted the bullets into subheadings. I also added a sentence under Epidemiology addressing recurrence. Typically occurs because of an underlying predisposition to pneumonia. Let me know if you think that it deserves more mention - it's really more a matter of an underlying problem increasing risk InvictaHOG 15:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This would be a good topic for an FA. My notes:

• FACs are always hit hard for any and all one-sentence paragraphs (two isn't good either) and one- or two-paragraph sections or subsections. It always hurts a little to see the "cleanly organized outline" sink into the background, but merging the sections and replacing the subheadings, where needed, with text does usually make an article read better.
• I personally was surprised at the shortness of the "treatment" section. Particularly the very brief mention of mechanical ventilization. Eh, maybe it's just a personal bias: my wife was hospitalized with pneumonia at the beginning of the year and was kept under, on ventilation, for 10 days. Still, maybe there is something more that could be said.
• I'd lose the "See also" section and rely on those links being in the text. It can actually be a little POV-ish deciding what class of related topics are the important ones that make it into that list.
• I'd rename ==References== to ==Notes== and ==General references== to ==References==; at least, I think that's more typical. Maybe in medical articles it's not, though. Look around, see how recently featured articles do it, and try for consistency.
• The article needs some in-depth copyediting, fixing grammar and flow throughout.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I've ditched the see also and started to copyedit. The multiple sclerosis article we just finished used the references heading and it's certainly more in keeping with medical literature. I'll see if I can find better examples, though. I'm working on the section thing. I can certainly rearrange the complications and classification sections. What do you think about the pathophysiolgy section? I think it's fine with different sections because of the links to individual article. As for treatment, you're tempting us! We expect to expand the ventilator-associated pneumonia in the future to better cover the topic. At this point, there's so much more to be said about treatment that it's probably best to leave just the most common situations in. Luckily, pneumonia requiring ventilator support is quite rare. Not that it mattered to your wife, I understand... InvictaHOG 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Regarding the pathophysiology section: I think if a topic is extensive enough to have a separate article on it (and be linked in the "Main article: foobar" fashion), then it should merit a few paragraphs in a parent article like this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I just finished an article on ventilator-associated pneumonia - probably not as applicable to your wife, but an important part of the pneumonia set of articles nonetheless! InvictaHOG 03:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. There was always worry of a reinfection. Didn't happen, but I still don't recommend long-term ventilation as a hobby :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

I rewrote the introduction and the entire band history section to make them more comprehensive. I think this may eventually be a good Featured Article candidate but right now it's quite long, and I'd like to be sure that it's not filled with the sort of fancruft that music articles often have; I've tried to avoid writing that way but I'd like help pulling out anything that I may have unconsciously slipped in :) --keepsleeping say what 16:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the images need license information. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Added. --keepsleeping say what 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Content is good. The introduction kind of seems like a staggered mix of the two points of view (parents etc. and fans etc.) instead of a fluid, neutral combination of the two, so I think it could be written a little better, but there's nothing really wrong with it. History is written very well, if a bit long. Reads like a small biography and doesn't get too crufty. I think a little blurb about the drama with Reznor deserves a mention, right about where he drops Nothing for Interscope. There's really no explanation given as to why he changed labels, making it seem like it's an insignificant part of his story.  freshgavin TALK   02:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I get what you're saying. By that point in the article, I was concerned about its length, so I kind of glossed over recent history in favor of a comprehensive history of the band at its peak. If you (or anyone else) want to go through it with a new pair of eyes and start trimming the fat, I'd appreciate it. --keepsleeping say what 16:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• A few minor points. First, the images are a bit big (as one whose dial-up connection is sometimes a bit sluggish, they make the page load rather slowly); could they be thumbed rather than framed? Secondly, is the "tour history" section useful? Without any other information, it doesn't convey very much. Thirdly, is there another band infobox that you could use? The current text warning about the TfD is a bit ugly (and it'll be worse if the template is in fact deleted). Fourthly, I'm not well up on this, but would a featured article need some samples? In general, though, the article looks fine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The images were supposed to have been thumbnails. Apparently they were both thumbed and framed — a syntax error on my part. I've elected to expand the tour history rather than delete it outright, but now the article is even longer; that's a separate concern, though, and I may eventually fork off a Discography of Marilyn Manson article. As for the band infobox, the debate over its TfD seems to be leaning quite sharply toward "keep", so I'm going to leave it in place unless that changes. --keepsleeping say what 20:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The images look much better now. I'm still unsure about the usefulness of the Tour section. The band have toured extensively — I'm a bit worried that the detail doesn't add anything and looks rather fancrufty.

Am I wrong about the samples? I seem to remember that being an issue at another FA nomination (which failed). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • You're right about the samples: the FAs that are about bands all seem to have them. I suppose I ought to make some, then. --keepsleeping say what 21:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry for not commenting sooner. I think it's a very good article, well-written and free from POV. This is more than can be said about many articles on contemporary musicians, many of which are fangushy and swamped with excessive details about the sales and chart performance of their records. The description pages for the images will need source and copyright holder information, as well as fair use rationale. Check out the images at the Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) article if you are unsure about the last part. It may be wise to send an email to the group's official website asking them to release an image of them under a free license (see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a few sample letters). Also, the discography and videography section could be split off into a Marilyn Manson discography and videography article, and the tour dates could be moved into a Marilyn Manson concert tours list (though the latter may be WP:AFD'd). A few more quotes from critics about their work wouldn't go amiss either. On an unrelated note, maybe you could start a Marilyn Manson wiki at Wikicities. Extraordinary Machine 19:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good read. I'd like it to be more obvious to the reader that they can get to an entirely seperate article about Marilyn Manson (person). I always skip listy things in articles, so it might be good to mention in the article's lead what Manson's real name is, since you begin the History section with it. This needs a reference note: "despite evidence that both Harris and Klebold were not fans of the band" I'd get rid of the inline links in the "on the internet" section if you want to get this through WP:FA. I don't know what to think about the table-formatted discography, but it doesn't follow the "standard appendices" section of the WP:MOS, which is likely to be another FA problem. I agree with User:Mel Etitis about the tour listings as well. I'd rather see a paragraph or two of actual text if there is something to be said about the tours than a list of every single one. Furthermore, if the band is going to tour again, it will require indefinite upkeep. All that said, it's a pleasure to see that Wikipedia's article on Marilyn Manson is this good. Jkelly 07:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Tour history is now out, since the tours are already discussed in the history section. Inline links are gone; they're all compiled in one endnote. As far as the discography tables, there's no offical format for Wikipedia:Filmographies and Discographies so I used the same format seen in Featured Articles Nirvana (band) and Dream Theater. --keepsleeping say what 16:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

History of Ireland

Another great article about Ireland from the guys at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board, and one very close to FAC quality. Needs some proofing and 'outsiders' opinions. Thanks Seabhcán 14:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Any way of losing the huge whitespace before Direct Rule (1971-1998)? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Done Seabhcán 20:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• What would be nice: reduce the lead to 3 paras; add a pic to the lead; the pics at the bottom of 'Norman invasion and the Kingdom of Ireland' section are too cluttered - move/resize/remove; replace main article/see also templates with the correct one ({{details}}) and delete the ones refering to a yet-non-existing article. More notes would be nice as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Guinness

This is a great article on that most Irish of drinks. Any ideas for improvement? Seabhcán 09:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• There's some good stuff, there, but it could do with some possible additions:
  • How to pour could do with a diagram
  • Difference between Irish & British Guinness (if there is any - I know this is a topic of dispute)
  • More on the bottled versions, and why they have a market in West Africa & the Caribbean
  • Television advertising & slogans - "Good Things Come To Those Who Wait", "Not Everything in Black & White makes Sense"; several Guinness ads have won awards. A small example image of Guinness advertising (if it can be covered by fair use) would also be nice.

• Also:
  • Inline external links should be proper references.
  • Serving temperature should mention the Extra Cold variety & when it was introduced.
  • Varieties list could do with being organised by type (draught, bottled, export) rather than a single list. In fact, it might be better as a table.
  • Mentions the use of sorghum in Nigeria twice, separately.
  • I'm not sure if all the information about the harp is relevant specifically to this article. Qwghlm 10:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea about the "How to pour" diagram. Adding the ads to wikipedia might be legally sticky, but I'm not sure. Thanks Seabhcán 10:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear if the items listed in further reading were actually consulted to write this article- references should be clearly identifiable for the reader. Html links should be converted to inlines, or at least cited in full so they cane be identified if a reference website goes down. I assume since this article is both about the company and the product that there should be some more detail on corporate stuff, profits, number of employees, etc; where brewing is done around the world. How licening the name Guiness works seems to be an important omission since in most countries Guiness is produced under licence by local breweries, how much does it cost a brewery to get a licence to make it, how is quailty controlled and so on. An old advertising poster if discussed in the context of the article could be pictured in the article under fair use. The lead could use some expansion to summarise the content of the article.--nixie 01:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just me but I was just thinking that it would make more sense if this article referred to the company entity Guinness Breweries and most of this information was moved to Guinness Beer, or something like that. This article contains mostly information about the beer (and the culture? around it) and a little bit of information about the company itself and it's workings, but I think that they should be treated separately. There is definitely not enough about the company itself (a standard company profile style page would be appropriate) and it's history, not to mention Arthur Guinness himself.  freshgavin TALK   02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that the word "Guinness" unqualified usually refers to the drink, rather than the brewery, and the phrase "Guinness Beer" is awkward and rarely used, I would recommend having the article Guinness be about the drink, and hive off the details of the brewery to Arthur Guinness Son & Co. instead. Qwghlm 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that Arthur Guinness Son & Co. is much more clunky than Guinness Beer or Guinness Breweries, but anyways, either a disambiguation page, or links at the top of the Guinness page and a couple of redirects here and there would suffice.  freshgavin TALK   23:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's a good enough treatment, but it does have some holes:
  • Inline citations. You have some, but the following points should probably be footnoted so the reader knows where the information came from:
    • The fact that some drinkers consider Guinness a "meal in a glass" or "liquid bread" (without a citation, this reads like original research).
    • The fact that the temperature at which Guinness should be served is disputed (again, original research without a citation).
    • The direct quote from the advertising campaign needs to include an inline citation to one of those adverts. (i.e., "It takes 119.5 seconds to pour the perfect pint.")
    • ". . . many American bars seem to ignore the requisite 'slow pour'." Source, so doesn't come off as original research.
    • "Another myth is that Guinness is brewed using water from the River Liffey . . . . " Source, so doesn't come off as original research.
    • "Guinness fans can visit the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin, which has been described as Disneyland for beer . . . ." Where has it been described as such? Source it. (Also, watch the antecedent. Is Dublin a Disneyland for beers, or is the Guinness Storehouse?)
  • I agree that the article needs to discuss the corporation that is Guinness more. Profits, corporate history, advertising campaigns and how they differ in various parts of the world. West Africa is a huge market for Guinness, and the current article barely covers this. Cameroon in particular (according to unsubstantiated rumors I heard while there) is the third largest Guinness consumer per capita after Ireland and the U.S. They use Michael Power in their advertising, with slogans like "Guinness brings out the Power in you!"
  • Likewise, serving Guinness is different in Africa. Lack of refrigeration means that Guinness is often served room temperature. It's pretty much only available bottled, as well. (This is all original research by yours truly, but you should try to dig up sources on Guinness in different markets.)
  • The discussion of the River Liffey myth is out of place. It comes under the header "pouring and serving", but it has nothing to do with either of those.
  • I'm pretty sure Malta is available in other markets than just West Africa. One of my old roommates was Puerto Rican, and his family loved the stuff and drank it in Louisiana. —BrianSmithson 16:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I just wrote Michael Power (Guinness character). The sources there would be good for the main Guinness article, as well. —BrianSmithson 19:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Imperialism in Asia

This article is an important one that unfortunately has never attracted too many editors over the years. In the past couple of days I expanded almost all of the incomplete sections; but there has been no no reaction on the talk page, or no one else editing the article. I'm hoping that a peer review will finally manage to attract some feedback to this article, and eventually bring it up to the quality to whcih an article on a subject of its importance should conform. 172 | Talk 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Took a quick look and seems very good (I'll read it more closely later). It raises the question as to whether there was imperialism in Asia before Europeans (Ghengus Khan?, Ancient China?, etc) or should the article be renamed European Imperialism in Asia? Seabhcán 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article suffers from systemic bias. The Chinese empire began forming around 400 B.C. if I remember correctly. Japanese imperialism needs to be discussed. Mongol imperialism. Also, what about the Indian empires? Mughal, Gupta, etc--those are part of Asia. And the Central Asian empires (e.g. Qajar), and the Islamic empires that penetrated into Central Asia. Also, the Russian empire in Siberia. This article should be moved to European imperialism in East Asia. —thames 15:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I meant to insert a placeholder for "Asian empires before European contact" as the first section. I'd forgotten, so I just inserted it. (I feel slightly embarrassed now that I forgot to reassure everyone that I had not completely forgotten the Indian and Chinese dynasties, the Mongols, the Islamic empires, etc. at first.) At any rate, this means the first section and the last two are left to be finished. I can finish the last two sections on Japan and the postwar era. But I'm hoping that I can find someone else to write the section on Asian imperialism in the ancient and medieval periods, as that it outside my scope of competence.

I favor the current structure presupposed by the existing content and the placeholder headings (but I am very open to feedback) because European imperialism in Asia does not set reasonable boundaries for a topic, as it would exclude from discussions of "the New Imperialism" the important factors of the rise of Japanese and American imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In other words, if this article is going to be broken up (and it may not have to be if a strong section on "Asian empires before European contact" is written for the beginning), it's better to divide up the topic by time as opposed to place. 172 | Talk 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Niiiice, I can see this FACed soon. Some notes: lead is too long, needs trimming (and that's comming from me, long lead fan :). I wish I was more familiar with this subject, alas, I know very little about this time and place. I think Japan imperialism pre and during IIWW deserves a significant expantion, as it is a very interesting proof that non-Western societies can be as imperial and the Westerners. Something on modern (communist) China (absobtion of Tibet, evolution into modern regional and global power and neighbour fears) would also be nice. I am looking forward to reading this during FAC process! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Japan and modern Communist China are the two main areas left unfinshed. I was making good progress earlier, but got distracted in work on other pages. 172 | Talk 05:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightning

Seems to meet the criteria for a featured article. Just putting it in peer review for due diligence before the FAC list. David Bergan 19:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sections and subsections are very small. Right or wrong, I got several objects about that when I put something up for FAC. -- SCZenz 07:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This needs a few improvements:

• A longer lead section (at least two healthy paragraphs, briefly covering the contents of the article)
• One and two sentence paragraphs should be expanded or merged
• Table of contents is too large—short sections (only one short paragraph) should be expanded or merged
• In-line citations are needed (see format at an article I'm working on, gas tungsten arc welding)
• External links need to be reduced to about 4-6 extremely relevant (and preferably noncommercial) links, and links referenced in the article need to be put under references. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Great article, very comprehensive. I have taken the liberty of changing the layout of the article, combining some section, and turning all those third level headings into bullet points. Seabhcán 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all the points made by Spangineer. Some other things need tidying up there are lots of unconnected sentences that should be incorporated into paragraphs. The Facts and trivia section is odd, surely the facts should be incorporated with the rest of the factual information and the trivials details included in a section called lightning in popular culture or something similar.--nixie 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

smotherbox

I could not find anything to add. Neither was anyone else actively working on the article. Maybe it would be possible to add something on the history of such devices, but could not find anything on that one either. So I'm looking for anything which would make the article more complete or assure its quality so it could some day reach featured article status. --Easyas12c 16:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Aside from history and a nice picture, I think you said everything I would have wanted to know about a smotherbox. InvictaHOG 00:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, history and perhaps demographics. I now know what one is, but how many people use them? Just in the U.S., or elsewhere? Were they "invented", or have they been around a long time? Have they been mentioned in any mainstream (or other) media sources? The picture depicts a lesbian couple - is this predominantly (no subtle pun intended) a gay thing? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So, we need a smotherbox-history expert. I think that the most common setting is woman on top and man at bottom, and I have personally never seen a man on top, but it might just be me. Where do you find reliable statistics on use of smotherboxes? --Easyas12c 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I just fixed the link to breath control play as it was pointing to breath control, an article about meditation. --Craig 02:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dromornithidae

One of my longer articles, a lot of info already in place. I'm not sure wether all the formatting and wording is correct. Could this be a featured article? Mstroeck 12:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Great job!
• It's nice to wiki family, genus, species, etc. the first time used
• Anything interesting in the etymology of the word?
• Why are there so many different genera? What differentiates them/why are some split into species?
• Not everyone knows how large a cassowary is. Perhaps a more concrete estimation of size?
• Explain the Australian megafauna the first time you introduce it
• There are a lot of red links! InvictaHOG 00:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, InvictaHOG! I had a go at all your points except for the red links (that's going to be a lot of work) and the question about taxonomy (frankly, I don't know...). I'll try to find that out and start writing the missing articles or at least create some useful stubs. Mstroeck 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have begun to create articles for the red links. Cuddie Springs is already online and almost done, just needs referencing. I have rudimentary articles for almost all the others as well, but haven't put them online yet. However, I'll be on vacation for the nex 4 days, so I probably won't be able to answer to any comments. Mstroeck 13:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The West Wing (television)

As the show winds into what may be its final season, there is definitely enough material to create a featured article. I believe that what this page represents is a good start toward that. I am hoping that a peer review will broaden the perspective on the article to include those who don't watch or maybe have never seen the show. I know that may be difficult given that most of the article carries a spoiler warning, but I think it's very doable. Thanks for all comments!! -Scm83x 06:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• I put a good deal of work into this page in times of yore. I think that the article's current version has a wealth of information; but perhaps too much information, maybe too much detail. Also, no offence to any contributors, but I think a lot of the prose as it is is poorly-written. All the shuffling around has left a few holes... for example, a sentence in the third paragraph ends, "...sidelining Lowe's Seaborn", before any priot mention of Seaborn and the fact that she show was originally built around that character. There are "no no" words like "recent" in references to episodes. Could use a good deal of work (but that's what peer review is all about). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I agree! I think there's too much information for someone who has never seen the show. It should be easy to cut a lot of it, because much of it is trivia. This page has spawned a lot of daughter pages about the characters, and a lot of the same information is there. We can definitely make more general references and then link to the individual characters or episode list. I'll take a look at the continuity issues and try to improve the prose. Thanks! -Scm83x 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've done a quick run-through of the article up to the 2006 election, mostly for grammar and style. When discussing the 2002 election, it's mentioned that Bartlet's reason for keeping Hoynes on the ticket is because he "could die." Nowhere in the article, however, does it mention his MS. I know it mentions this on his character page, but I think a blip toward the beginning would do much to justify the later claim. Otherwise, this article has a lot of promise. Sahasrahla 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking that much more could be made of how the series deals with contemporary issues. There is a section in the middle about this and the fact that Bartlet's MS is not mentioned brings this to the fore. Bartlet's MS did a lot to educate the general viewing public about its symptoms (as noted on the multiple sclerosis page) and that it is not fatal, a common misconception. This could expand into a section about the greater impact of the series as a different venue for exploring important political/social issues. I have a several tests this week, but I will try to take a look at these sections over the next few days. Overall, as was mentioned on the talk page, I think this article should look like less of a fansite and more like an encyclopedia. This is gonna require cutting a lot of things that we may not want to, but we have to make it all relevant to everyone. -Scm83x 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Added the social impact section. Trying to find citations. -Scm83x 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Needs a discussion of how many American Democrats like the show, while many American Republicans strongly dislike the show. Of course, such a discussion should be written with citations. —Lowellian (reply) 15:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• The article's External links section should follow the guidelines defined in Wikipedia:External links. This is simple to fix but the fix hasn't stuck yet due to disagreements in interpretation. I share the concern of User:Blankfaze that the article has too much information. I'd suggest, for example, shortening the discussion of the West Wing universe and moving details about that universe (e.g. Cabinet and Presidential Order of Succession) to a separate article on the Universe. Other, smaller issues: the topmost image (except for the infobox) was from an SNL skit instead of from the show itself, and there's no section about the departure of Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme from the show; that departure is the most-cited reason that the show may have jumped the shark. 66.167.139.129 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Wow! Thanks for these suggestions! I think the external links issue has been resolved, or is in the process of being resolved, as we are going to move the external links into the article and reference them as footnotes where applicable. I will start parsing through the excess information (mostly on the presidential campaign section) and move the Cabinet posts to an acceptable auxiliary page. Also, I will research the departure of Sorkin and Schlamme more thorouhgly in order to fill in this section of the article. Finally, I will get an appropriate screenshot from the actual show and move the SNL skit screenshot down the page. Thank you again, very much! -Scm83x 21:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Added discussion of Democrat v. Republican viewership per Lowellian, surprisingly opposite of common sense. Pared down external links, forked cabinet/presidential succession list, took a new screenshot for top of page, and working on Sorkin/Schlamme departure section per anonymous. Also forked the timeline skew discussion and deleted campaign information already on the auxiliary campaign pages. How is the peer review for this article going so far? Any further comments would be appreciated. -Scm83x 16:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • As of the time of this comment, the External links section has 20 external links, including three links to fansites. That violates the explicit guidelines on links to fansites and the spirit of the guidelines defined in Wikipedia:External links. Featured articles should be exemplars of best practices in all respects. To be fair, I should note that within a week the article has nearly tripled its list of cited sources, illustrating a commitment to another guideline, Wikipedia:Cite sources... 69.3.70.119 21:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC).
        • Thanks for your comments! I appreciate that someone noticed the article's massive overhaul and appreciates the source citation we have worked on. The external links section is the subject of an on-going debate. Personally, when I get a chance, I would like to turn as many of the externals to cited sources. This is very possible, I think. If you would like to comment about this matter further, feel free to comment on Talk:The West Wing (television). -Scm83x 21:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've roughly skimmed through it, and I think it's very well done. I am a little concerned that some of the analogies are not accurate, such as comparing Clinton's impeachment to Bartlett's MS scandal, which is also an example of original research although I understand that this is an entertainment-related article. I don't know if it has been used already, but the long out-of-print George magazine once ran a cover on the show, and it is reproduced (at least in part) here. It may be of help. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your comments. I'm sure you're also referring to the Plame/military shuttle comparison also when you refer to the possibly inaccurate or original research analogies. I had heard/seen these comparisons elsewhere on the web, and I will go hunt down my sources for these comparisons. Thank you so much for the George article; I will read it and add the applicable information. -Scm83x 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think there should be a discussion of show's evolution in the ratings. How it used to be very popular, but has gone way down since (but is still nr 1 with high income viewers). One could mention ways NBC has tried (or not tried to) raise ratings. The airtime move, but the (by many) perceived lack of promotion (looks like many people didn't know it was on Sundays). The "Live Debate" as a "stunt" (especially right now there are lot of articles on that) to raise ratings, which have been even worse this season in spite of the fact that many critics are actually liking it again. There was also a quote from NBC saying they expected the ratings to go down with the move. I also think the year of Santos/McGarry election should be changed to 2005. The proof for this being the year lies in NBC's campaign blogs: If you look at the "campaign blog" for Santos, the first entry is Wednesday, August 3. August 3rd was only a Wednesday in 2005, not in 2006. Since we know it's only a couple of weeks/days till Election Day, it looks like the Election is in 2005. In the same way, Vinick's blog is dated Thursday, August 4. Of course this leads to a year being missing, but this is the way the election is officially being portrayed by John Wells and NBC. I think it should be up to the reader to decide how they wish to interpret it. We can continue offering the various theories/comments on Timeline on the link separate page.

--newsjunkie 17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Game theory

Hello all - This article has been substantially reworked from the former version. I would like any comments anyone has for how it can be improved. Particularly, I would like it to be readable by a wide audience and provide a fair and complete picture on how game theory is used. Please tell me if any part of the article does not do these things. Thanks you for looking into this page! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have added that I brought this article here because it was suggested that this article might be up to Featured Article quality. I would love to here attitudes about whether we are at that level. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well it's a good page and covers the subject nicely, but if the intent is to aim for a general audience then I think the page should be written at a High School vocabulary/education level. Words such as realizability, methodology, idealization, cognitive, contractarian, and so forth, would tend to put off lay audiences, as would comparable expressions. But that's just my opinion. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a good suggestion. I'll give the page a read and try to remove as many of those as possible. There's always a trade-off with length of sentences, so I might leave some. I may not get to it for a few days, but never fear I will! Thanks for your suggestion! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've gone through and corrected what I can. I can't think of another way to say this sentence: "Game theorist respond that while the assumptions they make do not always hold, they present a reasonable scientific idealization akin to the assumptions of models in physics." Any suggestions? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I took a shot at it: Game theorists respond by comparing their assumptions to those used in physics. Thus while their assumptions do not always hold, they can treat game theory as a reasonable scientific ideal akin to the models used by physicists. — RJH 16:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Bravo! I've replaced the sentence in the article. Thanks RJH. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Its very good. It could use applications to political science sub area. Also, Auman and Shelling are just the most recent in a (long?) list of Nobel Prize winners who use game theory. Mostly, though, the introduction needs some filling out. I always think that an article on the main page should make me want to read it due to an interesting or catchy opening paragraph.Smmurphy 05:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Smmurphy! I agree, I've been unhappy with the opening paragraph myself. Every time I rework it, it always ends up too short or too long. I have the philosopher's disease, I make anything I touch bland and academic :) Anyone else want to give it a shot? Even just a sketch would be great, I could fill in the details. I also agree about the political science sub area. I didn't add one because I really don't feel very competent in this area. Its a real loss since game theory really took off in the 60s and 70s because of its application to military strategy. In particular I think a lot of stuff happened at the RAND corp with respect to mutually assured destruction, but I don't really know what. Can anybody point me to a nice reference text that would give me a quick overview? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Unclean animals

I want to get this up to FA status at some point, I've gone through and detailed the key religious text which relate to the concept. What I need from peer review is answers to a few questions:

• What other content do you feel belongs in this article?
• Are there any other major religions which have a concept of "unclean animals" that should be documented?
• Are there any other scientific studies which should be included or discussed?

I also need assistance with any other cleanup/punctuation/grammar checking that you feel is necessary.  ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• The apparent sole exception to this rule is a bee's honey which is deemed kosher. It's not clear to me from the article why bees aren't kosher. Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me either, but in my research that was the only exception that I found. Bees are considered non kosher, but beeswax, honey, and honeycomb are all considered kosher.  ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Why are bees non kosher? I think the article needs to explain why (or at least that) bees are unclean. Pburka 22:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It shall be done then, I'll see what I can dig up for reasonings.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Regarding bees, according to [8], " Of the "winged swarming things" (winged insects), a few are specifically permitted (Lev. 11:22), but the Sages are no longer certain which ones they are, so all have been forbidden." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  In light of Angr's post here and his addition to the article, It looks like we've solved this why bee's arent kosher issue.  ALKIVAR™ 02:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some references to halal (in addition to haraam) would help explain more about the Islamic tradition. Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Halal is linked to as "Zabiha" what exactly are you looking for? As i understand it since Halal is only a list of acceptable stuff in this particular case the "clean animals"... so doesnt it belong on that article not this one?  ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  I hadn't noticed that. I'm not very familiar with the subject. But it does make we question if we really need two articles on this topic. Are Clean animals and Unclean animals two different topics, or aspects of the same topic? Pburka 22:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  I think each will end up being large enough to require their own article, but they are definately two aspects of the same topic. I'm hoping to get this one up to snuff first and then tackle Clean animals.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Also, is kosher food halal or vice-versa? Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  From what I understand that is a subject of debate, some muslim clerics state animals slaughtered by anyone other than a muslim cannot be halal, others state any animal slaughtered by a Kafir (non-believer) or Mushrik (polytheist) are the only ones forbidden. So I cannot get a conclusive answer to this one, when I can find something more specific I will add it.  ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I feel like a spoilsport for saying it, since I actually like the way it looks. however, I'm pretty sure that those grey-boxed quotes are not sanctioned in WP:MoS (manual of style). I would have thought that adhereing to layout standards would be a criterion for FA status. --bodnotbod 17:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Actually I've looked through the MoS ... there is NOTHING absolutely nothing regarding block quotations, and or styles for them. So it is not a violation of any established policy.  ALKIVAR™ 22:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  The standard for block quotations, while not very clearly stated, is presented briefly in the quotations section: Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Quotations. You don't need the italics and the box, while pretty and attention-getting, isn't standard either. Not complaining about the way you've done it, but I'm pretty sure that a simple block is what they'll be expecting!  freshgavin TALK   03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Quite. Actually it strikes me that, since <blockquote> style is, presumably, set in the css of each skin that they could have made them a bit more exciting globally. The problem with putting your own styles in is that you're then in the position (if you wish to be diligent) of checking it looks OK in all skins. Grey on white looks fine to the vast majority of us, but if (as someone has) you have set your wikipedia to display green text on a black background (an extreme example, I realise) then it looks less good.

Althouth the MoS turns out to be weak on quotation style, a wider policy is that mark-up that will baffle the causal editor is kept to a minimum. At Wp:tables#When_tables_are_appropriate it says::

Many times, a list is best left as a list. Some articles include very long lists which might be difficult to edit if they were in table form. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

Tables shouldn't be used simply for layout, either. If the information you're editing isn't tabular in nature, it probably doesn't belong in a table. Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians, and isn't really what tables were designed to do.

When tables are inappropriate

Very long lists, or very simple lists

If a list is quite long, or is relatively simple, use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats. Long lists can be hard to maintain if they are inside a table, and simple lists do not need the row-and-column format that a table provides.

I wasn't getting at you Alkivar. I placed grey boxes on Rachel Whiteread and am trying to get feedback on the best way to achieve the effect I'm going for in a way that doesn't have the problems I'm talking about. Also, if you go up for peer review, it's best not to shout at the people giving you feedback as it may deter others from constructive criticism. And, again, I sympathise because I find the layout of most articles boring after a long day of editing and it's nice to say different layouts. But ease of editing comes first it seems. --bodnotbod 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took that as angry shouting... I was more shocked that we didnt have any policy regarding it. I am quite happy to take the criticism, otherwise I would never have put this on peer review :) And as far as the tables go, its either 2 REAAAAAAAAALY long lists (which people always complain about on FAC), or 2 tablified lists with several columns to condense (Which FAC people seem to prefer); since the content in the tables wont be changing... I dont see a real problem with it.  ALKIVAR™ 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, Alk. You need to mention and discuss Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger, it's the single most famous and influential study of the subject. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  Hey Bish, thanks for mentioning her, I was completely unaware of her study. She is now added to the article.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Have you noticed the overlap between this article and Taboo food and drink? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  Yes I have, and I think they both stand seperately. Taboo food and drink concentrates much more on cultural taboos as opposed to "religiously denied" animals. For example Cows are culturally taboo in India, but they are not an "unclean animal" according to Hinduism. While similar the concept is different.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should mention the four land animals Leviticus names unclean because they have one and only of the the required traits. It is very interesting that science has yet to discover or create an exception... HereToHelp (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

They already are included, re-read the first table.  ALKIVAR™ 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Prester John

I requested a peer review to see if this article needs anything. I think especially the "Later legend" section could use some work.--Cuchullain 20:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You appear to have a great a great deal on expanding this article. Kudos to you! Here are the first things that jump out at me as needing work:

• The introduction should be expanded. For an article of this size it should be at least two paragraphs but no more than three.
• The article is filled with many names. While most of them have articles, they should be explained a bit in the text. Nothing elaborate, simply something like "ecclesiastical historian and bishop Eusebius quotes from Saint Iraneus..." Otherwise the article tends towards becoming a jumble of unfamiliar names.
• The article has many short paragraphs. Try either expanding the information or connecting shorter paragraphs to create larger ones.

I hope this is helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead 21:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nice - but desperatly needs references. Also, I think that Kingdom of Aksum should be mentioned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Having worked a bit on Axum-related articles, I can't think of any significant connection between the legend of Prester John & the history of that ancient kingdom. The later kings of Ethiopia did trace their lineage to Axum & before, but locating Prester John in Africa was a later development in the evolution of the story, inspired by stories of the contemporary victories of Solomonid kings over their Muslim rivals in the 14th & 15th centuries. -- llywrch 23:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Raney nickel

This is an article I brought up from a mere dicdef to the more or less complete article that stands today. My intention with this peer review is not so much try to bring the article to Featured status but rather see if the subject is understandable by a non-chemist. Since I think the article is rather technical and the prose may be a bit dry, it would be great if more people read it and came up with suggestions to make it more readable. And some copyediting wouldn't be bad either. Your help is much appreciated :-D -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Great work! I am probably not the person to ensure readability for a non-chemist, but I will see what I can do in the way of copy-editing. Physchim62 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additions! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• The addition of a third metal changes the phase diagram of the alloy to that of a ternary alloy. What makes the phase diagram of a ternary allow interesting? Does it change the allow to a ternary alloy, or just the phase diagram? Is there another term which can be used in place of phase diagram? As a non-chemist, a phase diagram sounds like a graphical representation of a physical phenomenon. What is the name of that phenomenon? Pburka 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The name of the phenomenon is phase equilibrium. I don't like that sentence either: how about "The addition of a third metal changes the stability of some of the different phases." It is difficult to avoid the technical term phase, but I will have a think about it. Physchim62 17:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• It would be good if the Applications section included a practical example the average reader could relate to. Is the reduction of benzene to cyclohexane such an example? Can this be related to the production of something non-chemists would use everyday? Pburka 15:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• I like the use of the hazardous materials images in the Safety section. The first and third paragraphs have images. Can an image be added for the second paragraph? Pburka 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I noted your comments and will make the necessary changes. "Phase diagram" has a precise meaning and I can't think of other terms to replace it, although I agree that a bit of an explanation would be warranted. The cyclohexane example is intended to be common application, see the change now in the article. For the safety section, there is no safety label for 'irritant' as far as I know. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a symbol for irritant, it is exactly the same as the symbol for harmful which is on the third paragraph, see European chemical hazard symbol. Nickel is not officially classified as an irritant, although nickel allergies are well known: the reason is partly technical, and partly political... Physchim62 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! Yes, my thoughts exactly (I should have known that :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• It may be of interest to note that Raney's choice of an alloy with 50% nickel-silicon content was fortuitous and without any real scientific basis. However, this is the preferred alloy composition for production of Raney nickel catalysts currently in use. This confuses me. Is it supposed to say nickle-aluminium? Pburka 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • It actually refers to both Al and Si. I've fixed that now since only the Al ratio is truly relevant for that paragraph. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• You asked for input from a non-chemist. I haven't had a chemistry lesson since I was 13 years of age and took no science subjects past age 15. Therefore "Alloy composition is very important because the quenching process produces a number of different Ni/Al phases that have different leaching properties." was the first point at which I got utterly lost. Having said that I see no advantage in turning the article into something I would understand. Were you to accomplish such an onerous task (which would require explanation of all difficult terms involved in the article with reasons why I should care) it's still unlikely that the information would be of any use to me and - in its new form - would no longer be of any use to those it could have been. If it were the basic chemistry article I were looking at then, yes, I feel I should have my hand held. But with a substance I would not - as a layman - have any cause to encounter, then I can cope with being baffled. --bodnotbod 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Another suggestion, if you'll excuse me barging in from WP:Chem: how about introducing a nice chemical infobox {{chembox}} for presenting some info? And pictures? And some crystallography? It sounds like a metal, so can you construct anything with it, or is it only the famous catalyst? Just wondering, trying to be helpful. Wim van Dorst 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC).

I thought of adding an infobox but decided against it because the only data I would be able to fill in would be density and solubility. I haven't even seen a consistent CAS number assigned to it (either the nickel or nickel aluminide numbers are quoted). I agree on the need for a picture, but I'm currently away from the lab and won't be able to get one till December. I'll look into crystallographic data since I remember seeing some powder XRDs of commercial Raney nickel in an article (single-crystal XRD is not possible, however). Finally, the article only refers to the catalyst; an article on the metal itself should go to nickel aluminide, which, if I remember correctly, is used to reinforce some steels or something like that and has substantially different properties because of its non-porous structure. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think a chembox is really warrented here as it is more of a material than a chemical. Physchim62 12:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

manifold

This is an important concept in mathematics with many incarnations. It allows for a simple geometric interpretation of gluing paper together. It has been attempted to make this article accessible to non-mathematicians and reserve the technical details mostly for specific incarnations such as differentiable manifold and topological manifold. Therefore I would be very interested in finding out whether we succeeded in this at all. All other comments are also welcome of course. --MarSch 11:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cdc

Wow, very well done. I really appreciate the work done to make this comprehensible to non-math people (like me). A few comments, from someone who had absolutely no idea what a manifold was before reading the article:

1. Looking only at the intro paragraphs: Manifold and Surface are be defined in terms of each other; a manifold is a generalized surface, and a surface is a 2-d manifold. Is there a way to describe one or both in some other terms, so I can get a clear picture of what's going on from the first paragraphs?

   I've rewritten the intro to clear this up. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

2. I feel like there's some specific usage of the term simple here, but I'm not sure. Things can be simple in many ways; easy to understand, having few parts, etc. Since simplicity seems to be an important attribute of manifolds, would it help to define more specifically what the term means here?

   I've rewritten the intro to clear this up. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

3. I don't usually use "you" and "we" when writing Wikipedia articles - it sounds somehow too informal to me. I'm aware that mathematics has its own writing style, so maybe it's okay here, but it's something to consider.

   I will try to remove this writing style. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

4. I didn't get why the Hausdorff assumption is important enough for this general article - needs more context, maybe?

   it is not important and way too technical and I've moved it to the more specialized topological manifold.--MarSch 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Are there any applications or implications of this that can be briefly mentioned? Are these used in engineering or modeling or anything?

   I've rewritten the intro to clear this up. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a nice piece of work! CDC (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. --MarSch 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony1

• I like this a lot, but it needs a few changes.
  • The lead is unsatisfactory. First sentence too technical—there's info further down that is more accessible to non-specialists, so why not present an opening definition that will be more widely comprehensible? Remove 'technically'? 'Much of the terminology is inspired'—insert 'connected with manifolds' after 'terminology'? 'In the remainder of this article we will give'—better as 'The remainder of this article will provide ...'. Three overly short paragraphs. Needs flow and needs to engage your readers.
  • 'A manifold is a space that looks, when examined close up, like'—clumsy word order. Same for 'and is, in this sense, like a'—so check through the whole text for dependent clauses that are embedded in awkward positions.
    • I've rewritten the intro and it avoids this now --MarSch 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 'compared to' for similarities; 'compared with' for differences.
    • fixed --MarSch 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'Such a'—better nowadays as 'This'.
  • One example is given of a specific notion, but there are many more examples. Therefore "This" would not be correct and neither would "These". Perhaps this is alright after all? --MarSch 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Italics for 'Figure 1' etc, is harder to read and unnecessary. Better to reserve that highlighting for technical terms.
  • fixed --MarSch 11:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up the formatting of the reference list. Use all initials rather than first names? Punctuation needs to be consistent. 'provides', not 'gives'; 'in undergraduate ...' Hypy comment for Milnor. 'The 1851 doctoral thesis in which "manifold" (Mannigfaltigkeit) first appears.'—How many 1851 doctorates were there?
  • I kind of like to keep the first names. I've fixed the punctuation and grammar/style errors. What is "Hypy"? There were probably many 1851 doctoral theses, but only one by Milnor. --MarSch 12:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree that "best math book ever written" is hype (though I like the book). The doctoral thesis is by Riemann (not Milnor); those interested in history care about the date and the context (presumably). --KSmrq^T 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• The images are FUNKY!
  • Please explain this more. I'm not even sure wether this means bad or is a compliment, though I'm assuming the first.--MarSch 12:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dethomas

I agree, this is a well done article. I like the second and third person here, the you's and we's, they help to make the material more accessible to the casual reader.

The pictures rock, but the article needs a hook in the lead paragraph. I left out the wiki formatting and links, but how about something like this for a lead?

"While many people think of x's and y's and long schoolroom afternoons when they think of mathematics, many mathematicians think about shapes and surfaces. But our normal three dimensional space of width, height and depth is often inadequate for reasoning about mathematical problems. Over time, a variety of ideas have converged on the idea of a manifold as a way to help think about surfaces.

An everyday example of this sort of thinking is the common street map, which uses a two dimensional drawing to represent features of the earth, whose surface is three dimensional. Indeed, much of the terminology of manifolds is inspired by map-making or cartography, we speak of an atlas of charts which can be pieced together as a patchwork to describe a manifold." (by User:Dethomas --MarSch 10:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

Kill the opening and start from 'Our normal three-dimensional perception of ....' Tony 11:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Actually we like to say that the surface of the Earth is 2 dimensional. Also manifolds are about much more than only surfaces. I hope you like better the new intro I've created. --MarSch 12:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The current opening paragraph doesn't engage the casual reader, while the second paragraph,if he gets that far, dumps a load of complexity on his head. The first paragraph of the Introduction is a much better answer to the reader's implicit "Why are manifolds important?" question.

Any lead paragraph needs to tell the reader why the material is worth his time. So what are manifolds and why should the reader care? Because they aid in mathematical reasoning about surfaces, shapes and spaces in ways that everyday three space is ill-suited to do. Let's just say so. I'm quite willing to let the "long schoolroom afternoons" go, but most readers need a boost to get over the "eek, math!!" threshold. I think the street map analogy or something of that nature places the reader in familiar territory (as do the words "chart" and "atlas") while opening the door to the depth of detail in the article. But that's just my opinion.

Dethomas 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The closest I can get to a street map example is the example of charts in an atlas of Earth. This is what I wrote about it [9] a while ago which later got ruthlessly cut [10]. This is what I wrote

Imagine you have a few sheets of paper and some glue. The paper is of a special high-quality kind that can be strechted and molded into whatever shape you want and it never tears. You could cover the Earth with just two such sheets. One strechted over the North pole all the way down to Antarctica and another stretched over the South pole all the way up to Greenland, with a bit of glue at the tropics where they overlap. You have just proved that the surface of the Earth is a paper manifold!

Is this like what you have in mind? --MarSch 16:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really, not for a lead or opening paragraph. A good lead convinces the reader, in a few sentences, that the material is worth his time and effort. My sense is you are being too literal (pedantic?) with the "earth's surface is two dimensional" mathematical idea, and hence missing the point. To the the target audience, the non-technical reader, the idea that the earth's surface has height, width, and depth but we commonly represent it with flat, two dimensional chucks of paper called "maps" is understandable and nonthreatening. By analogy, we can proceed from the familiar concept of a street map to the unfamiliar concept of a manifold, draw the reader into the article, and let the Introduction section do it's job.

The current (Oct 29) lead is too big, too wooden and does little to draw the non-technical reader into the body of the article. So I'm still suggesting something like this:

"Our mundane notions of width, height and depth are often inadequate for reasoning about some types of mathematical problems. Over time, a variety of ideas have converged on the idea of a manifold as a way to help mathematicians think about surfaces and related topics. An everyday example of this sort of thinking is the common street map, which uses a two dimensional drawing to represent features of the earth, whose surface is actually three dimensional on the scale of daily experience. Indeed, much of the terminology of manifolds is inspired by map-making or cartography. We speak of an atlas of charts, which can be pieced together as a [[[patchwork]]] to describe a manifold."

You can take this verbatim as the lead, or you can bless it and I'll put it in, or somebody can write a new lead, but if we are trying to reach non-technical readers, we should ditch the current opening paragraphs if favor of something Joe Everyman can read without passing out.

Dethomas 05:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot bless it. Projecting out the height to construct a city map has nothing to do with manifolds. Or perhaps I should say that this is way too trivial to mention in this article. Everybody knows how a chart can represent a piece of the earth. Stating that the surface of the Earth is 3D is unacceptable too. What manifolds are about for example is that even though you cannot make a chart which covers the Earth, you can nevertheless bring a lot of mathematics from the plane over to the sphere.

It would be more helpful if you tried to make specific remarks about the intro, so that I can fix/rewrite things.--MarSch 12:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I did make specific remarks, and offered specific remedies to what I saw as essential problems. But that's just an opinion.

In any event, an effective lead paragraph draws in the casual reader. If a trivial example does the job, use it. I think it would be more helpful if you remembered the article is aimed at a non-technical audience, that the rigor of a textbook is inappropriate, and give me the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to disrespect of your contempt.

The phrase "you can nevertheless bring a lot of mathematics from the plane over to the sphere' is precisely what you what to tell the reader in a lead, and precisely what my examples have suggested. Read what's in the comment, not what you wish was in the comment.

Or not. Your burden.

Dethomas 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to disrespect you or show contempt. If I have I apologize. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that the lead you suggested is unacceptable for the reasons I stated. I know you have said that the lead should draw in the audience and I agree. I just don't know what will do that for laymen. To me the mention of usability for general relativity is enough to get me interested. On the other hand I consider "you can nevertheless bring a lot of mathematics from the plane over to the sphere" only of superficial interest. So how can a general audience appreciate the content of that statement? Apparently I'm wrong. So thanks for that. I'll incorporate this in the lead ASAP. When I said specific I meant extremely specific. Tell me what you think of each sentence, whether it is clear or interesting. Questions which are unanswered. Thanks in advance. --MarSch 11:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

KSmrq

Good to see this moving forward. A number of goals agreed in the talk archives still could use some work. One lingering concern is the lack of a link, say in Other types and generalizations of manifolds, to the original and still important type, the Riemannian manifold. --KSmrq^T 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Riemannian manifold-link is buried inside differentiable manifold which is linked to. Perhaps the history needs to be augmented? --MarSch 16:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what goals do you think need work?--MarSch 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NatusRoma

My comments hardly deserve their own subsubheading, but that seems to be the way. I suggest moving some of the technical details in the introduction into paragraphs in the lead. As a mathematician, I wanted to engage the mathematics more quickly, and the lead doesn't really allow me to do that. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that there should surely be technical details in the first sentence of the article. It's an article about mathematics, so the content should be about mathematics. NatusRoma 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We decided to make manifold a general article and to keep it free of technical details. Those are to be addressed in topological manifold and differentiable manifold and their cousins. Perhaps this fact should be stated before the lead. Does this address your concern? Which things from the intro do you think should be moved to the lead? --MarSch 11:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1993

One of the most important and interesting Canadian elections in recent years. I've been working on this article recently, trying to bring it up to FA level. It almost certainly needs some copyediting. It would also be great to get some image of campaigning, but getting free ones would be difficult. - SimonP 03:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be warying of using nicknames like "Tory". Few people outside Canada, and non-experts inside Canada, will know what that is. Although, I do like how the term covers both the PCs and John Tory. Are there references for the polling numbers? You don't have to answer this but, where are the references used in the article? The article is dominated by the campaign narrative, perhaps add some explanation of how the vote is set up (first past the post), voter turnout, and other more technical matters. The finance section needs a table (especially where comparing numbers). Otherwise, nice narrative, great national results table (the small text makes it easy to go through). However, the results table is probably the most pertinent topic of the article, why hide it at the bottom? --maclean25 04:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are some SWEET tables Simon! Anyway, it does need a bit of work in places.

1. For one thing the lead would probably be better off as two paragraphs and it needs to be a bit longer.
2. In "Background" the first paragraph is too short - try merging it with something.
3. "Campaign" - There are quite a few shortish paragraphs here.
4. "Issues" - last paragraph too short... expand or merge :)
5. Well, and there are several short paragraphs here and there...
6. In general could benifit from a couple more images
7. External links? Just kidding - I don't think this one really needs any :).

Moreover just needs another pass or two for structure... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• You should check your use of commas carefully. I've fixed one instance of a misplaced comma, but there are many more, and I'm getting too much Wikipedia lag to have time to edit them all. RSpeer 05:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very minor, but the two diagrams of the seat distributions (Image:Elec1988.PNG and Image:Elec1993.PNG) aren't quite consistent. The Liberals seem to have gotten a bit pinker in 1993, and one images is slightly larger than the other. Pburka 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Here are some things that can be improved, in my opinion:

1. You should reference sources for poll numbers, Campbell's quotes, analyses of voter behavior and analyses by political scientists.
2. In the sentence, These factors combined to make Mulroney the least popular leader since opinion polling began in the 1940s, does "leader" mean "prime minister?"
3. For the benefit of non-Canadians, you should explain the five-year rule that required Campbell to call the election.
4. At what date were the PCs close in the polls to the Liberals?
5. Who does "they" refer to in this sentence: They failed to get literature distributed to the local campaigns, forcing each candidate to print their own and preventing any unified message.
6. How could the 1993 campaign have taken place during the "late 1980s recession?" The article on that recession says it ended in 1991.
7. As this is not a scholarly journal, you should explain who "Jackson and Jackson" are and use their full names in the text.
8. I would consider seriously trimming the minor-party section. I think only the National Party is noteworthy. Mwalcoff 02:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

International cricket in 2005

This article, which has almost all been written by User:Sam Vimes will be completed at the end of the month, when the last detail can finally be written. I think it'd then be suitable for featured article status, but would welcome constructive comments on anything else that should be done before it goes to WP:FAC, jguk 16:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd object if it was put on FAC anytime before January. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Why? Have you seen International cricket in 2005-06? jguk 12:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt this will pass muster on FAC; too many tables. Great FLC candidate though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• It would be useful if you put dates for the start / stop of the cricket season, as defined in the article, and mention more prominantly the 2005-06 article. Bluap 13:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Will do - I'll expand the lead paragraph a bit, too. Sam Vimes 14:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon

Seattle is today's featured article, and I think it's time Portland makes the jump as well. Before I suggest it though, I'd like to see what critical concerns can be generated about the article in its current state. Sarge Baldy 00:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• There are some improvements that I could suggest after looking through the article, which includes the following:

1. External links should only be in the external links section.
2. There are a number of single sentence paragraphs. Stylistically, this is discouraged.
3. Image:Portland downtown.jpg and Image:Portland rose.jpg do not have copyright tags or have questionable copyrights. You should instead use images with GFDL-compatible licenses. Image:Portland rose.jpg should also be replaced with an image that shows Portland in general (could you get a picture of a rose garden in the city? An image of only a single rose could be located anyway in the world). Pentawing 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've dealt with #1, which was a problem (some of the external links were even used in the place of working internal ones). #2 is more of an issue, with some of the single sentences really not fitting with anything else, although I'll look at expanding them when I get a chance. I agree that more and better photos are necessary. I've been meaning to get there and take some, but haven't had an opportunity to as yet. Thanks for the input. Sarge Baldy 23:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have spotted this earlier, but this article is missing an economy section. Also, the article should be kept below 40 kB (36 to 38 kB to be safe); there are some users who object to large article sizes. If the article starts going over the 40 kB limit, you should start eliminating unnecessary information (e.g. information that concentrates exclusively on an institution rather than its relationship to the city) or moving some sections to sub-articles. One such section that comes to mind is "Portland's five sections", which you could summarize and move the details to a sub-article. Pentawing 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't looked too closely, yet, but I wanted to note this before I forgot. This paragraph needs some work:

"The Portland metropolitan area is located within the Willamette Valley, which follows the Willamette River and the I-5 Corridor. The valley consists of suburban municipalities sprawled around patches of farmland farther south. The further north you travel, towards Portland, the thicker the population density becomes. The vast majority of Oregon's population lives in the Willamette Valley. Interstate 5 bisects the valley and a significant number of commuters travel the I-5 Corridor daily."

1. (Minor point) Stylisticaly, might as well remove I-5 Corridor from the first sentence, since it's covered in the last.
2. The Willamette valley is mostly farmland, isn't it?
3. Describing the population density of the valley as increasing as you go north is oversimplified at best. Eugene, Oregon, at the south end of the valley, is Oregon's second-largest metropolitan area. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the sections seem a bit thin, and there doesn't seem to be many images of the city and its landmarks. James Pinnell 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think overall it is a decent article but not one that especially jumps out at me as great. Something I dislike about articles of this nature is that they read a bit much like a cross between the CIA World Factbook and run-of-mill guidebooks. Youth subcultures are a huge part of Portland and recognised in novels such as After Nirvana and the popular media. Under the heading of "people" you might include some aspects of Portland's subcultures rather than repeat basic census information. If the article is made more interesting, I could see it becoming a feature, certainly.--Mike 21:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005

It just struck me that this is one of the few pages on Wikipedia that can ever be considered to be 'finished', as the only edits that can ever be made to it will be corrections if there are any errors... additions do not need to be considered.

Hence I thought that I would maybe try nominating it for featured article status at some point, but would appreciate opinions of others beforehand; both on the page itself, and whether one could consider it suitable to be featured. --Neo 15:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the feeling for "List of..." pages at FA is, first off. Maybe see if there are others and if not save yourself nom'ing. Lists are lists--not that they can't also be well done! Thus, some points on the article:

• Make the first sentence more generic: "The UK election, contested on x date, saw a Labour party victory with x seats etc. A total of x parties ran, with a significant number of..."
• Clarify "national fourth parties." I know there are three major parties and thus can deduce the meaning but that won't be the case with others.
• Unpack "the impact of minor parties should not be underestimated." Perhaps: "minor parties had a decisive effect on policy debates etc."
• Finally re-structure last paragraph. "Parties are grouped based on the three sub-national components of the United Kingdom (maybe better than simply "nation"). The listings in the group proceed with..." Also, alphabetical is last but where, say, four parties have the same number of candidates they aren't necessarily in alphabetical order. Marskell 23:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Try nominating this at WP:FLC -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ephrem the Syrian

I put a lot of work into this article a good few months back. I'm quite happy with it, but a needs a little bit of something else. I'm posting for peer review because I would like to get some ideas of how to polish this one until it is very, very shiny! --Gareth Hughes 11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A few ideas (some of them quite minor):

1. The lead should be expanded to be a summary of the major points from the rest of the article.
2. The discussion of variations of his name should be merged into the lead, or possibly moved to a footnote if it is too long. Technical details of spelling are probably not the best thing to open the article with.
3. The infobox should probably be moved up to the top of the article (unless there's some standard for saints that suggests a different usage).
4. The quotes might be intergrated into the prose.

Overall, though, the article looks quite nice. Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Kyrill. I've taken out the name section, and added it and some summary into the lead section. I've added a couple of photographs of Ephrem's church in Nisibis. The WikiProject Saints suggests the seperation of veneration from life in articles on saints (quite understandably!), and suggests that the infobox goes in that later section. I'll keep working away at it. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Gareth Hughes 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Lead seems short for the article, but its not too bad
2. "Life" - last paragraph too short
3. "Writings" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short and 6 is even a one-sentence paragraph
4. "Veneration as a saint" - Paragraphs 3,4,5 too short
5. " Quotations" - these should only be here if you REALLY need them - otherwise they should be on wikiquote

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I've attached the last paragraph of Life onto the end of the previous one. However, it seems a bit abrupt to me, so I might rewrite the demise. The short paragraphs in Writings are begging to be expanded really. I've combined two more short paras in Veneration, but I think I can write some more on his place in the Syriac churches and in the wider world, and as seperate paragraphs. The quotations could be worked into the article somewhere. Is there anything in particular that you would like to see in this article? --Gareth Hughes 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Gareth, I have a couple of problems with the section "Life". The first is that the focus appears to be more on the world of Ephrem than on Ephrem: a sentence tells us "It was a time of great religious and political tension" -- yet there is no explanation what this tension was, nor how it affected Ephrem. For example, did the Diocletian persecution touch Ephrem's life or his community? I know that it was far more savage in the eastern part of the Empire than in the western.

The following paragraphs have the smae problem. I had to read them twice to realize that Ephrem was mentioned in them; their emphasis seems to be on the ongoing war. (BTW, the link to Constantius should be to Constantius II.)

Also, I don't get a sense for the person after reading this article: there is little if anything to distinguish him from the dozens of other churchmen of the period. If you could find something to give him a bit of personality -- a physical description, an anecdote of his life, or a discussion of his writings -- that would make this a strong candidate for FAC. -- llywrch 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I can see exactly what you mean: the Life section focuses more on the political history during Ephrem's life than his actual life. The problem I have is that the more vivid accounts of Ephrem's life are late and unreliable. I have mentioned them in the Veneration section instead, where I felt that they shed more light on how people have felt about Ephrem rather than his actual life. The Life section is drawn from the internal evidence of Ephrem's genuine works with a strong current of local contemporary history. I think the solution would be to include more from Ephrem's own works and less history. The Diocletian persecution, Shapur's sieges and the deportation of the Christians to the west are themes in Ephrem's hymnody, and must have had a profound effect on his life. I could make this more vivid in the account. The reliable anecdotes and descriptions are all of others: Ephrem doesn't write much about himself. --Gareth Hughes 14:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Advance Wars: Dual Strike

This article has come a long way from what it used to be. Some advice on what to add, expand upon, remove, change, etc. would be appreciated. If possible, I'd like to elevate this page to featured article status. -- gakon⁵ (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Any references? This is a requirement for FA. Pentawing 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, my main reference was the game itself (considering this is an article on a video game), although some bits and peices of articles were drawn from walkthrus and FAQs. So.. I should link to those text files? -- gakon⁵ (talk)

• No, that'd be illegal. You need references to back up claims, such as sales figures, quotes from developers, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, actually, I haven't quoted any developers, written up anything on sales figures (as it didn't sell nearly as many copies as a DS game like Nintendogs) or made any claims that need backing up, unless I'm missing something. Would a write-up on the game's developemt history be in order or something? Although looking through things such as Gamespot updates on this game, nothing terribly interesting happened before the game launched; not on the scale of something such as Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, whose developers traded off the development of the game three or four times. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

1. May need a two paragraph lead (WP:LEAD)
2. Several subsections too short - systemic through the article Merged Versus and Link mode into Multiplayer;
3. "Game Modes" opens with a one-sentence paragraph. Two or three more sentances, need more?
4. "Demo mode" a little short.... Merged into Game modes > Combat mode
5. "New commanding officers" - too list heavy, get rid of these and just write it out :)
6. "New units" - again, write out this list stuff Merged into Gameplay > Units
7. You do need sales figures etc. here in order for it to be comprehensive (one of the FA criteria)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

At last! Someone replies! I've been trying to count the exact number of words in this article, but I was guessing this would need a two-paragraph lead. I'm also working on condesning the number of sections, particularly under Gameplay; Game Modes will have some sections merged (eg Link and Versus mode into Multiplayer). Do you have any advice on what subheaders under Gameplay are good to keep or remove? I myself didn't put them in there, but they're probably making the TOC larger then it needs to be. The Units section, I'm going to link to the just-created Units in Advance Wars, and provide an overview of what kind of units are available, as well as making notes on the new ones, going along with Wikipedia:Summary Style. The Demo section I can probably integrate into Game Modes > Combat mode. And, lastly, I'll find some sales figures, although I don't have much of a clue where to go, and this game probably wasn't too much of a record-breaker. I'll look around. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

Resolved issues strike-thru'd. - g⁵

Alright, I'm working on reducing the number of subheadings still, so I gots some questions:

• Should Units and Commanding Officers be out into their own sections, or stay under Gameplay?

• I'm going to translate New Commanding Officers into a paragraph and then maybe stick it in Gameplay > Commanding Offers. If I do that, it should be large enough to graduate from subsubheader to just subheader (two equals signs), no?

• War Room and Survival are the smallest Game Mode sections. Should they be stuck into Other Modes?

• Or, as an alternative, I could just put everything under Other Modes except Campaign and Combat mode, and probably Multiplayer too.

Advice appreciated. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2005 (current)
• Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2005
• Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2004
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1