Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, are not signed, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

For the other archives, see Wikipedia:Peer review#Archive links.

The most recent topics appear on top.

Salt Lake City, Utah[edit]

This article has been significantly worked on over the years, and has seen several peer reviews and a few FACs in the past. I think it's closer than it's ever been, now that there's far more references and all of the image problems have been cleared up. I just generally want an overall analysis of the article to see just how close to FA status it is. There's still some sections that need referencing, and I plan to look for references soon. Unfortunately, two major contributors in the past (User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) haven't been around for a while as far as I know, so some of the content they contributed will be hard to find references for. Anyway, I just want to see how close to FA status this is, since I feel it's just so close!

Most recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive4 bob rulz 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the brief look I took:

  • We could improve the flow of the geography section. As it stands, there are a few short and/or irrelevant sentences which need to be expanded, clarified, and/or merged.
    • We should really state how often the lake stink phenomenon occurs, if possible. Cities closer to the lake probably enjoy the smell constantly, but in my experience Salt Lake City (more accurately, the suburb I live in) experiences this problem relatively infrequently, perhaps a few times a year. Currently, as well as before my edits, it sounds as if the city has an unpleasant odor all the time. I found a source.
  • The lake effect has a major impact on the climate,[1] and should be mentioned in the climate section. Right now it is only briefly touched upon in the sports and recreation section. Of course we have discussed this before, but I just wanted to mention that this info would be useful in this article as well as Great Salt Lake, I am not trying to nag by any means. :) Oops, I was using Firefox's Find feature, but I was not searching for the hyphenated lake-effect, so I missed that in the climate section.
  • I'll add a few citation-needed tags as necessary, and try to dig up some sources, but for now I'll just ask that sources be added for the population numbers in the lead. --Lethargy 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenwriting credit[edit]

I'd appreciate our film buffs and anyone with experience in Hollywood looking through this. I've got an article, a section of links, a good bibliography, a see also section. It needs some fresh pairs of eyes to look through it. PedanticallySpeaking 18:22, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • I would definately put the "External links" section at the very end. Also, maybe a screen shot of a proper screenwriting credit would be nice. Also, the title of the article should be in the first sentence in bold. Otherwise, very nice article! [jon] [talk] 17:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jon. I did put the name in the lead and tweaked it some. I didn't want the external links to be last because they provide links to official material and to some of the disputes I mentioned. I didn't want that to get lost by being last. As for screenshots, that's a good idea, but I don't have the capabilities to do such a thing. Some of the complicated credits I mention would be good places to start. Also think of big action movies--they tend to have more convoluted origins. PedanticallySpeaking 19:54, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • The manual of style recommends it however. I did this before I read what you wrote here... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A fascinating article! However, can't other countries have a screenwriting credit system? This seems to be focused on the WGA's credit system. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

United Nations Resolutions[edit]

I've inserted this page as an "overview" of what UN resolutions are, and of their legal status. But it would benefit from review/expansion by international lawyers. --Ian 12:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should "Resolution" be capitalised in the name? I would say not. Rd232 23:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Security Council resolutions are often referred to a SCR or UNSCRs, suggesting a possibility of capitalisation. But you're probably right. So I'll move the page :). Ian 01:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why shouldn't that go into the main United Nations article? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Hidden Curriculum[edit]

I wrote this article while Massachusetts Institute of Technology was undergoing an NPOV dispute. There seemed to be a paucity of cogently argued, written material being cited, as if nobody could find more than a few newspaper articles which were critical of MIT. This was bothersome, particularly because I know students have good reasons to Hate This F—ing Place. I had inherited a copy of Snyder's book, and it seemed worthwhile to hack a review together. I showed my work off to my friends (amazing I still have them after all the scribbling I've done), and they made a few suggestions, which I incorporated. It's bloody hard to find recent material covering the same topics Snyder did, unless I'm looking in all the wrong places. Somebody with professional training in sociology or social psychology could probably do much better. Outside of Voo Doo, "MIT's only intentionally humorous campus publication", people don't seem to be setting down their complaints, not in anything resembling a citeable publication. Which is why I dug through Voo Doo back issues for something relevant. They do make better reading than the Tech, for sure.

Anyway, improvements here could probably go a good long way towards cutting the sophistry in MIT's main article down to size.

Anville 01:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reckon it's pretty good really. I can't think of anything I'd change. What's the conflict with the main MIT article? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare's reputation[edit]

I feel a bit alone with Shakespeare's reputation, please help with content. A few other editors have contributed valuably, but mostly on limited aspects, so what you see is in the main my work. I've done up the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries (not that they can't stand further improvements, esp. the 19th c, and of course critical eyes, too), but the rest really needs more hands. Come to the party, bring 'em if you've got 'em! These are some underdeveloped or missing aspects:

  1. An international perspective. (I feel so ignorant.)
  2. Elizabethan theatrical conditions. (Ditto.)
  3. 20th century stage reputation and literary criticism. (Not my field.) However, please note the Talk page suggestion for creating a separate article for Shakespeare movies (hint, hint, feel free to go create it), to keep Shakespeare's reputation from growing into a monster. It's already quite long. It's not comprehensive, though, that's the problem.--Bishonen | Talk 12:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beatles for Sale[edit]

I recently rewrote this article. Is it good enough for featured status yet? Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Some of those professional review links in the infobox don't seem to be working! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I noticed; Q has a nasty habit of breaking links, and I'm not sure if we should be linking to them anymore. I found four links to the same review on Google, but only one worked; the others apparently expired. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The song "Mr Moonlight" had appeared on the album "Stay With The Hollies" in February 1964. The song appeared again on "Anthology vol 1". Ogg 13:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's much more we can add to this! Looks pretty good. Anyway, due to lack of feedback in a while, I'm moving this to the archives. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang[edit]

Hi, I'd like to know if there are any comments on how to get this article to feature article status. In particular, is the style well-done, are there any ambiguity issues, does it read well, etc. I would nominate it for fas right now, but I'm concerned that there may be some issues I overlooked. Joshuaschroeder 02:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Pretty good, but I feel that a reorganisation may help it read better. IMHO, I think that the "Theoretical underpinnings" section should appear after "Descriptive Overview", which in turn should appear after "History of the theory". JYolkowski 03:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This edit has been done. Joshuaschroeder 08:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that there are some places where the article could be made a little more unambiguous, but whatever tweaking needs to be done before an FA nomination will be quite small. By the way, I think that Stephen Hawking says in A Brief History of Time (ISBN 0553380168) that he proved a theorem whereby, if the assumptions of General Relativity are correct, the Universe must have began as predicted by the Big Bang theory. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 05:33, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Well, Hawking makes some outlandish claims from time to time, but I hope this isn't one of them. It was Friedman who proved that if certain assumptions of GR are correct that they lead to an expanding (or contracting) universe. Hawking at one time thought that we would perceive the contracting universe the same way as the expanding one, but it turns out that the enthropic arrow of time does not magically reverse itself at the rebound point before the Big Crunch in a closed universe. Joshuaschroeder 07:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have made the FA nomination for the page. Thanks for all your help! Joshuaschroeder 07:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infertility[edit]

Can someone with relevant expertise please fact-check the bit I added about mutual incompatibility? Also, it would be useful to have some idea of how common the different causes of infertility are: some narrative text would be good. -- Karada 13:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if something can be introduced here about those scientific methods that let parents select baby's sex? It's not exactly about infertility, but in some culture, not having a male offspring is considered a form of infertility. Revth 23:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infertility is immensely complicated, and "mutual incompatibility" is the least important cause to address. Usually, either a male or a female factor is identified. I would focus on chlamydia, azoospermia, mumps, Robertsonian translocations, and then raise the esoteric concept of mutual incompatibility. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

Previous Peer Review located at Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II/archive1.

Cut "United States industrial capacity" section. I am living in the Arsenal of Democracy but this is out of place here. Rmhermen 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just fixed up this article, shortened some sub-sections, enhanced others, added pictures, etc. Let me know what you guys think. Is this good enough that it can become a featured article, if not, what should I change to improve it. Mercenary2k 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not, this article is good. Every year it gets majorly rewritten - and becomes another yet another good article but it never reaches a level of stability where most people are happy with it. Rmhermen 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Gate Cycle[edit]

This covers a series of books in an innovative way. Is it the right way? Is including so many quotes, one from each book jacket in the series, a suitable intro to the set of books? Other comments welcome. +sj+ 15:38, 23 Jan 2005

I don't think adding the book jackets as quotes is terribly NPOV. I think that those who read it should give their own synopsis. That's just my $0.02 Ta bu shi da yu 01:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bank of China (Hong Kong)[edit]

This is my first really comprehensive article and I picked an easy topic, and modelled most of the stuff after Ryanair, a FA. I don't think I am experienced enough to tell what's right. Any and all comments appreciated... --JuntungWu 17:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • External links should not be placed anywhere but in the appropriate section at the end of the article (this is referring to all those external links interspersed throughout the text, i.e. the stock ticker links). Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Very good, though JetCo could be explained a little more, and the references section needs to be placed in the required format. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. As always, though, a very thorough and well-researched article :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll move more over from the main article on JetCo, and do some tidying. --JuntungWu 17:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, once that's done I suggest moving to FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I am still tinkering with it. Will do so later. JuntungWu 17:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plasma stealth[edit]

A well-written essay imported from offsite by its original author. Needs fact checking/slicing and dicing. I'm not an expert on the subject matter by any means, maybe I should check the Reference Desk as well. silsor 07:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Some of the writing is unencyclopedic (i.e. "This is easier said than done, but theoretically it is possible. The main problem is that the incoming signal is complex and the reflection off the surface of the aircraft is even more complex. How do you cancel it out? How do you process so much information so quickly? But most importantly, how do you position transmitting antennae aboard the aircraft to cover the entire aircraft (since the enemy radar signal is reflected from a multitude of points on the airframe and it's reflected differently from every one of them)."). In addition, an image would be nice. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestions:
    • Move parts of the article (especially the introduction) to plasma physics, leaving only enough of it to describe how plasma is supposed to reduce RCS.
    • Give a mention on military applications of plasma in plasma physics
    • Create a seperate page on plasma and aerodynamics. This article is supposed to be about reducing RCS with plasma!!!
    • Link them all togather.
    • Do what Johnleemk said.

Whew...! That's a lot of work! --SunTzu2 05:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway[edit]

I'd appreciate train buffs and those interested in Ohio history looking through this and offering suggestions. PedanticallySpeaking 18:09, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Granted, I'm not a train-buff nor particulary into Ohio history (WV-history is another matter, but then my better half is from there), but I like learning new things so I popped over and looked throught it.
From the initial read, I got one suggestion: Break it into sections. Please. It's (IMHO) much easier to read on a screen when it is.
Other than that, nice article as far as I can tell. I enjoyed reading it.
WegianWarrior 19:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree. I would break it into sections and also maybe see if you can have a see also section where it links to the List of United States railroads page so people can find out more information about rail lines in the United States. Otherwise, looks good. --Woohookitty 00:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you kindly WegianWarrior and Woohookitty. I've divided it up into sections of a graf or two apiece. And I put a see also link to the lists of active and defunct railroads. PedanticallySpeaking 18:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'd add a map, though I do understand that it's nontrivial to make one. The easiest way is probably to use a map from http://www.nationalatlas.gov/ and draw the lines. --SPUI 21:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a link to a map in my external links. Unfortunately, I'm not that adept at some of the technical side of Wikipedia and don't know where to begin on drawing a map of my own. PedanticallySpeaking 18:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Are we able to expand the lead section? We need more than one sentence, and we should make it so that we can get a readers attention ("Wow factor"). The map idea might be good (especially of the route), but I can understand if that's a bit tricky. However, well researched and this definitely has the potential to be a featured article! Last thing is: do you have any other images? That always increases people's interest. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your praise. I'm not very good on the technical side of things so I wouldn't even know how to begin to draw a map of the route. Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures. Someone else added the one that's there. Finally, I will take a look at the lead. My leads usually have been very concise, along the lines of the inverted pyramid style, and others have commented on my leads. Thanks again. PedanticallySpeaking 14:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't see anything else that needs to resolved then! Thought about submitting it to FAC? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disaster[edit]

Hoping to get the above referenced articles featured. Appreciate a group review! Revmachine21 10:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Not sure I'm so happy about having a list in the lead section. The list in "Natural disasters" seems to start arbitrarily, perhaps we could convert this to prose with a very brief description of each of the disasters (in a similar way that you have described volcanoes). I'd suggest the same for the man-made disasters bit! Lastly, we need a proper references section. I think there are a few surviving disasters books that I've heard of: I think one was a handbook of disasters. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The reason for only having a basic list was that by surfing to the natural disaster link, each event was briefly described. I considered prose description on this page a duplicate of information and a waste of hard disk space.
On a different note, my contributions were an in-between-jobs project for the benefit of all mankind. I just started with a new company and will not be able to hit these articles very hard. Will do what I can as able.
Revmachine, it's very good! I just figure we can make it better :) It's great to see a real expert contributing to our articles - I especially found the Business continuity planning very interesting, and this Disaster article is also very good. In regards to a waste of hard disk space: that is literally not a problem. We encourage material, and we ask contributors to never consider hard disk space! Wikipedia is not paper. Also, the reason I suggest prose is that an article should be fairly self contained in it's own right. It's not duplicating information, it's just summarising it! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Business continuity planning[edit]

Hoping to get the above referenced articles featured. Appreciate a group review! Revmachine21 10:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting! However, it would be good if we could have "Threat analysis" not just a list of points, but instead summarise each of the types in Wikipedia:Summary form. As stated in FAC, it would be good to have some discussion of how it overlaps with Risk management. More information on recovery management would also be great to see in this article (I always thought that this was a very large part of the solution, but I could be wrong here).
In my opinion, risk management (the valuation of open trading positions, evaluation of trading position hedging, foreign exchange exposure and limit monitoring) is not the same as business continuity planning, a process that any organization could and should put into place. There is another type of risk management, more commonly known as operational risk management, of which BCP is a subset among other things. Unfortunately, I am not able or qualified to contribute to op risk.Revmachine21 13:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Well, I did say I could be wrong :-) Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I added a reference to operational risk in the intro. I think others might disagree on the meaning of risk management but if they aren't involved, they can take a hike! Revmachine21 13:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but your opinion of what risk management is is far too narrow. Read the risk management article and you'll see that general risk management is more a less a superset of BCP. I suppose what you refer to as operational risk management is closer to what general risk management is. So I added a link to the risk management article. I suppose not too much more needs to be said, but the methods seem to almost entirely overlap to me. I have studied risk management and work in a related field. We have a BCP, but my knowledge of it is more or less limited to what I know of risk management. - Taxman 17:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Can you give us any real life case studies? This would help us quite a bit in understanding how this works in real life.
There were quite a few articles written about businesses responses to Y2k and World Trade Center. I will see what I can find.Revmachine21 13:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cheers :-) Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Someone in FAC also noted that not all disasters can be recovered from or seen as important enough to plan around. I've also heard this, something on risk assessment would be very good in this article.
This is mentioned already under Impact analysis section.Revmachine21 13:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, didn't notice this... Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What license is Image:BCPLifecycle.gif under? We would prefer GFDL, but this needs tagging. If you need help with this, please let me know and I'll help you tag it.
I made this image in MS Powerpoint. My design...Revmachine21 13:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it's very good! But... we really need a license for it. Do you place it under the public domain? Is it being contributed under the GNU Free Documentation License? We need to know the license! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please, you have my permission. Again for the benefit of all mankind!Revmachine21
Lastly, where are you getting your information from? Did you get it from the further reading sources? If so, then rename "Further reading" to "References". I cannot emphasis this last part enough. If you need some help with this, I am very happy to assist you and if you message me with the problem I will endevour to help you resolve any issues. In the meantime, it might be an idea to see Wikipedia:Cite sources, this document should help you get started with our standards for referencing and a rationale for why this is so important. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am a BCP expert working in International Finance. None of the material provided here is considered original material, but rather a summary of 10 years experience gained on the job from various corporate training programs. Essentially I wrote the text of the article, then found supporting public free source material to back up my text, notated under the External Links section. Many of the BCP planning tools used by corporations are very, very expensive (and may not be available without corresponding consultant charges) but I did provide the major link (ISO) under Further Reading section in case somebody is insane enough to want to buy the material.Revmachine21 13:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so all the external links should really be "References". I'll covert to the correct form when I get a chance. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can you format those properly as references then please? :) - Taxman 17:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
OK, will do :-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Railway[edit]

I've done a fair bit of work on this article and am thinking about nominating it as a fac. Before I do so, I'd like to get some comments on it, so I'd welcome any feedback. I'm particularly interested in getting feedback on whether it's comprehensive enough and/or whether there's anything that can be deleted. I had originally thought of adding much more stuff to the article but it's already over 32k so I decided not to. Thanks in advance, JYolkowski 00:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Here's my two cents: (1) more pictures; (2) add more data on the financials of the company, UNLESS you make it clear that this article is about the company itself, and not te operator, in which case you probably need to spin off an article about "Canadian Pacific Railway Limited" itself. (This is similar to the MTR and MTR Corporation split). I took a quick glance on the official homepage of CP Rail and saw lots of financial information about its IPO, etc., which could be useful. --JuntungWu 15:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I don't have a lot of pictures in my personal collection, but I've added some that were already here, and I'll see if I can find some other free images to use. I'm going to start working on splitting up the article and spinning an article off about the company.. -JYolkowski 00:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • You can take out the stuff on the presidents of the company and shove that to the spin-off about "Canadian Pacific Railway Limited". JuntungWu 13:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else have any other comments? TIA, JYolkowski 01:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think this is very good! Perhaps it might be time to submit it to FAC? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I've done that now. JYolkowski 23:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dominance relationship[edit]

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Sickle cell anemia/archive1. Axl 12:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete dominance[edit]

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Sickle cell anemia/archive1. Axl 12:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sickle cell anemia[edit]

These articles require review of the terminology used. Incomplete dominance means that the heterozygote's phenotype is mixed, somewhere between the two homozygote phenotypes. So what does 'incompletely recessive' mean? The most accurate description of sickle cell disease's genetics is recessive gene#Sickle cell anemia (although I would regard sickling as co-dominant, because cells in the heterozygote appear normal under most conditions but sickling occurs with hypoxaemia). Axl 12:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In view of the lack of response, I have changed the articles myself. Axl 13:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't answer these questions, however I'd like to take the welcome opportunity to make a few suggestions, questions:
  • "baseline anemia" what is this? Can this terminology be explained?
  • "Reticulocyte counts are elevated, reflecting new red blood cells replacing the rapidly cleared older cells - red blood cell life span is markedly reduced in this disease." - what does "Reticulocyte counts" mean?
  • "Vasoocclusive crises" - why are they called this? Where does the term come from?
I'm wondering if we could also explain what "crises" means in the context of this article. Also, a very brief explanation of the function of the spleen might be nice. This will help us medical plebs understand why this body part is so important and how it might be effected.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that I'd like to know what half these things are. I don't know anything about medical science, and it would be great if we could write this article from a POV that assumes the reader knows very little about the topic or topics related to this topic. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I can help with one of your questions. Reticulocyte counts are performed as part of a full blood count, in order to learn the rate at which new red blood cells are being produced. The reticulocyte page is helpful, as well. I agree that the article is a bit hard to follow... If I have time, I might try to clarify the parts that I understand. - Randyoo 21:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most of the questions are answered by following the wikilinks. I don't think this article should purport to give a comprehensive explanation what a reticulocyte is and does. Similarly, the "crises" are explained (although terminology is admittedly a bit confusing). Basically, they are vasoocclusive crises because the red blood cells change shape, getting stuck (occlusive) in small blood vessels (vaso) and obstructing blood flow to downstream tissues.
Randyoo: reticulocyte counts are not done automatically, but have to be requested specifically. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it should be so comprehensive it gives detailed explanations of the concepts. However, as Randyoo has already pointed out: it's hard to follow and makes far too many assumptions. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hayyim Nahman Bialik[edit]

This is a delicious bio which needs some wikification and perhaps some better cross-linking with related articles and cats. It is linked to a few things now, more according to what information the author thought to write about than by the WP higher-level arts and cats it would belong to. +sj + 02:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the lead section could do with some expansion. I have fixed up the heading levels and this exposed the need for an expanded lead section. I would very much like to see more information on the man's works, as this is an intergral part of why he is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Names of God in Judaism[edit]

I have worked on this article for a while now, and I kindly request assistance in getting this article into a good shape so that it could be considered for a featured article status. User:Gary_D accepted to copyedit the article and gave me some good pointers. Any other help will be most welcome. --Zappaz 02:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article speaks of the ineffablity of "Yahweh," but it fails to account for that of Elohim nor mention Elokim. From the Centralized Dictionary for the Hebrew Language (p. 266):

Yehova, Yhova,

The original writing for the name of the God of Israel in the Mikra, pronounced "Adonai" or "Hashem" or "Adoshem" if its vowelization/punctuation is "Yhova," or "Elohim," "Elokim" if its vowelization/punctuation is "Yehova," since it is forbidden to utter the name in its letters.

Speaking of "Yehvoa / Yhova" viz. "Yahweh" as an important example, the article fails to correctly depict some Hebrew words –in their most common use form– phonetically. What the article calls "Yahweh," then (and yes, I have read the qualifications in the Tetrag. article), is incorrect in this sense: the word is pronounced "Yehova" or "Yhova" (Ye-ho-va: Ye as in ¥ yen, ho as in holy, and va as in value) not Ya-h-veh. Maybe philologically, but there is no "heh" (that is, the sound, phonetically, not the letter "hey") in modern use.
Some other examples of failing to convey words phonetically in favour of a more formal translation (an approach I urge the respective editors to reconsider), has to do with the choice of letters: a "w" instead of a "v" for "Yehova," a "b" for "Abraham / Abram" versus "Avraham / Avram," etc., so again, I am in favour of making clear phonetic qualifications for these. Perhaps it was pronounced "Yahweh" but it generally isn't in modern Hebrew, and I think that this should be noted clearly in the article.
Also, the meaning of Yehova as "He Causes to Become" (or, I would say, "He brings to being") that is mentioned in the Tetrag. article, is one which this article fails to mention, thus failing to bring to its logical conclusion its respective introduction: "the third person singular imperfect of the verb 'to be,'" an introduction which I do find superior to the one in the Tetrag. article.
Lastly, I think it's superfleous to have a References and Bibliography section, I would suggest that the two sources cited in Ref. be moved to the Bib. one which then could be named Ref., or left as Bib. (dosen't matter), either way, I think there should only be one. Hope this helps. Best of luck with the article. El_C
Thank you for the comments. Feel free to come around and do some edits as per the above. Just please keep the Ref and Biblio separated as it is customary (Refs are that: referred in the article, Biblio is generic stuff that is supportive of the text.) --Zappaz 06:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... the generic stuff should be in further reading then, I think. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. Feel free to employ any of the suggestions I listed above in the article, and to solicit my opinion on these (or anything). I, myself, only use Ref. as encompassing both the generic material and sources used in the article itself – the odd times I may resort to footnote, but I do not do so often because the code for it is somewhat buggy at this point; in fact, I think I only used footnoting once (in The Destruction of the European Jews). At any rate, what is customary varies, unless I'm missing some MoS policy to that effect, and my comment on that front was only a suggestion. Instead of the above, I tend to highlight sources used directly by denoting these at around the top of the Ref. list. It isn't, though, a point I would press on when there is opinion to the contrary, at least not in articles I made no contributions to. More on your talk page. El_C

I've done a bit of tidying up of the article. It needs some thorough copyed and linking if anyone's up to it. Gareth Hughes 23:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Burial[edit]

Do elephants bury their dead? -- Curps 04:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert but this site seems to think so BrokenSegue 04:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Elephants use to bury their dead by covering the bodies with leaves, branches, and twigs; while it is not the burying proper (when a pit is digged out and the corpse is put therein), it is still a big step ahead in comparison with just leaving corpses alone to the poachers. You will say: but we people do BURY our dead, while elephants just cover them with leaves or branches! No, not always. For example, so-called Karamoja tribe in Africa don't bury their dead at all, they just leave the cadavers to scavengers.

HIV test[edit]

This is looking good, but there is a need for detailed review before this can be considered a candidate for a featured article. -- The Anome 08:43, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I would need more time to be more specific, but I'll say this now; remove self-references: "described here" & "this article". (and wikify "sodium lauryl sulphate" more commonly known as SDS) -- Mgm|(talk) 10:05, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • For an fac nomination, you will need some references. You might also need a picture, though I admit that it is hard to find a picture that goes with this article. --ashwatha 04:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • From a purely stylistic POV, I think that (in general) lead sections shouldn't have bullet points. They should be converted to prose and the lead section should be expanded to grab people's attention (though please don't sensationalise this sensitive topic - something I'm sure you won't do). Some other things: I wouldn't assume that people will just click on antibodies, I would suggest that a very brief explanation of them be incorporated into the text to make it clear why this is an important concept for the HIV test. All acronyms should be explained, not just linked to, as well. Also, the only text that should be bolded inline should be the HIV test bit, IMO the other text in the HIV tests should be italicised. Some specific queries:
    • "the patients 400-fold diluted serum is poured over a plate to which known HIV particles were attached." - what does "400-fold diluted serum" mean? I don't know anything about this and it's confusing.
    • "The low specificity of the test comes from the fact that sometimes there are cross-reacting antibodies: these are antibodies which attach to HIV particles "by accident", even though the body has never encountered HIV before. If an ELISA test is positive, the result is commonly confirmed with a Western-Blot test." - what does "cross-reacting antibodies" mean? I don't think its that clear.
    • "Orasure is an HIV test which uses mucosal trasudate from the tissues of cheeks and gums. It is an antibody test which first employs ELISA, then Western Blot." - what is "mucosal trasudate"? Why is this important? Can we get more information on this, and why it uses two tests? These issues would go the same for the urine test.
    • "There are also several unapproved immediate home-test products on the U.S. market." - can we have some examples of them? Why aren't they approved?
  • We have some more issues in the Antigen tests section. As with the antibodies comment, what is an antigen? A brief explanation is called for here, IMO. Also, what is a p24 protein? Why is that important? There is also a section that says "A variant of the p24 test first applies heat to denature the p24 protein and thus separate it from its antibody" - what does nenature mean? Why is this important to the test?
  • I think the best way of going through this is to read it from the POV of someone who knows nothing about medical subjects. Make absolutely no assumptions that a regular Joe would understand any of the things that you may take for granted. Explain everything, even if it seems fairly obvious to yourself. The authors are quite obviously experts or know a great deal about this topic, now we just have to have it explained for the rest of us! Don't stress though, this article most definitely has potential and if it can be rewritten with these suggestions in mind I think it will make a truly fine article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

I realize that since it's a list it can never be a featured article, but what I have is pretty comprehesive, e.g. I've got an event for every year from 1920 forward. Since I've been working on it to the point my eyes have glazed over, I'd like some fresh pairs looking it over. And I'd appreciate folks contributing any July 20th events and births they know of from articles they've been working on. PedanticallySpeaking 18:26, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Did you check what links here? That's what I did for March 1 - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

World Conference on Disaster Reduction[edit]

World Conference on Disaster Reduction is current event, currently in Kobe, Japan, I know it's part of the U.N., and also a connection with International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Thanks, ~ RoboAction 07:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick review of this article. First comment, the article needs more like:
* aims and objectives of conference
* participants
* any agreements to come out of the conference, and
* any further action items to come out the conference.
Added your page to my watch list to see the development. Would you reciprocate and review my disaster and business continuity planning article? Thanks in advance. Revmachine21 11:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have added the conference logo as a PNG. A very brief summary of the official documents of the conference might be good! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Octopus card[edit]

The article had been listed as FA for nearly 2 years when it failed an FAR in January and was demoted. Lack of sources was a problem and so was some of the section structuring. Since then, work has been done to improve the article. It was subsequently promoted as a GA article a few days ago, and now I'd like to request a peer review before nominating it for FA again. I'd like to make the FAC as smooth as possible so please take a look to see if there's any problems with the article. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural monopoly[edit]

Recently went through heated debate and several edit wars; see Talk:Natural monopoly. Any comments or contributions welcome. Rd232 17:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep, looks like someone wanted to be the sole author of the article. You know how that goes. RJII 17:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a good article which resembles what one would find in an encylopedia written by people who are knowledgeable of the subject. I'm sorry if you prioritise pushing your political POV, especially when you can't be bothered to either (a) describe it accurately and succinctly (or even readably) or (b) research it properly (and provide actual arguments instead of pointless waffle). Rd232 18:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you want something that "resembles what one would find in an encyclopedia" then why don't you go work for Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia, from what I gather, allows for a little more diversity of information than what is present in traditional encyclopedias published by "the establishment." I'm sure Encyclopedia Britannica would love to hire a guy with your mentality. RJII 03:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're the one implicitly criticising my request for input from other Wikipedia editors. Honestly. If you're single-handedly trying to drive me away from Wikipedia, you're nearly there. Rd232 08:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Diversity of information" doesn't mean your NPOV bullshit. Wikipedia isn't a blog. Go play out your paranoid anti-establishment fantasies in some LARP. I've read all the revisions as far back as 16:54, 15 Jan 2005, and user RJII is abusing the topic as a political soapbox. A factual description of the concept of a natural monopoly does not include your opinion on what "advocates of laissez-faire capitalism" say, or your straw-man refutations of anything. Take it to the discussion page. Not the article. I can't find a version to revert to that doesn't contain opinionated crap, so some major revision needs to occur. I reiterate the need for peer review of this article. -- anonymous, 25 Jan 2005
Why is there a "common tendency for average costs to first fall then rise as output increases"? Also, the diagram could be improved to make it clearer that the $ axis is the cost. Also a brief description of a cost curve might be nice in the diagrams section: economics plebs like me find that sort of talk confusing :-) An explanation of a "dead-weight loss" might be nice, this is mentioned but I don't think it's too clear! Another question: who is Baumol? Is he an economist? I kind of guess he is! I realise he's in the references, but it would be nice to clarify this. Otherwise (from my non-Economist POV) this is a very informative and interesting article. And I don't find economics articles terribly interesting... Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citigroup[edit]

I am trying to make this into a featured article candidate. If you have any ideas or criticisms, please edit the article or at least post comments on the citigroup talk page. Thanks

A few comments:

  • Too many three-sentence paragraphs, resulting in less smooth reading.
  • Related to that, too many (sub)sections, making the article look fragmented and uninviting. Try to join some subsections.
  • Stock: currently this section only lists some links to stock-related Wikipedia article. I don't know anything about shares, but a featured article on Citigroup would certainly have to say something about the stock rates over the past years etc.
  • Why put the scandals first and only after that the divisions, activities, and other basic information? I would do it the other way around.

— mark ✎ 20:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • "Citigroup was also accused of helping Enron and other companies hide their losses by loaning money to those companies in a special way that would reduce liabilities visible on the balance sheet." What way did they hide their losses? What was that special way? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "A New york lawyer accused the company for financing South Africa apartheid government when it was under UN sunctions. The money was used to suppress the same people who are currently paying for it." - which NY lawyer? Where is the source for this? Seems dubious! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "During the commission investigating Goldenberg scandal in Kenya, the company name has repeatedly come up as a chief vehicle for trafficking money from Kenyan economy." - what is the Goldenberg scandal? Where is the source for this? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Research[edit]

Anybody have any comments/contributions on the Research funding section (or on Research funding)? Rd232 08:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... are we able to get more information from the Research funding article and placed into Wikipedia:Summary form in that section? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Get Back[edit]

This article has been on FAC a couple of times, but never manages to make it. There are no objections, but few support votes either. Anyone got ideas for putting this over the top, or will resubmitting it just do? Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The article seems a bit non-notable -- a bit long winded for just a single song. The best thing to do would be to pare it down, in my estimation. Joshuaschroeder 02:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Put it up again and I'll support. Fredrik | talk 01:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Could have something on the recording sessions - although they finally went for the one on the roof, didn't they do some versions of this inside? Also, since this is a British topic, it should be in British English? - the quotation marks are all over the place! (anyway, this is easily sorted:) ) Let me know when it's next on FAC and (even if I have to correct the quotation marks myself;), I'll support, jguk 23:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Er, did you miss the details on recording sessions in the first two sections? The second is even titled "Recording, in the studio and on the roof". Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On my initial skim, I find two factual errors in the lead paragragh.

First, the lead says that the song was initially released on the Let It Be LP, when of course the single release was a year earlier. Later, this is mentioned, contradicting the lead paragraph.

Secondly, the bit about stereo is wrong. The Beatles didn't record in stereo at all, they mixed their recordings in mono and stereo. "She Loves You" was never released in stereo during the Beatles' career, but this is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with "Get Back". "Get Back" was the first stereo single purely because 45 RPM records were beginning to be released in stereo in 1969.

Also, I don't think the bit about finding "Get Back" bootlegs in 2003 belongs here. People have been bootlegging the "Get Back" sessions for thirty-odd years now -- what makes this particular bust important enough to get on the song's page?

If I get a chance, I'll take a stab at some edits. Bjimba 19:31, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

How is the article now? Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok[edit]

Need to have this page (Gangtok) critiqued. Wrote a lengthy article on this mysterious capital of the state of Sikkim, India complete with images. I fear that the page is too much of a "travel magazine" and maybe a little too verbose. Nichalp 20:55, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're being too hard on yourself. Most of the article is very well written, interesting, comprehensive, and covers the subject from a variety of angles and with the right degree of depth. The images are superb. I think the opening two paragraphs need to be written in more conversational English. They appear to be trying desperately hard to grab attention, and there is a bit of oversell in using words like "cynosure" and "sybaratic" - it makes the opening seem very pompous. I suggest toning it down somewhat, in keeping with the general style of what follows it. The other sections are well written in my opinion. The only one that I think needs revision is the "Culture" section. The first paragraph I think is out of keeping with the rest of the article because it's POV and makes generalisations about the people that is out of place. I mean phrases like "nattily dressed" etc, there must be a better way of saying essentially the same thing. I don't think it's too verbose - shortening it may achieve the result of making it static, clinical and uninteresting. As it is now, it is very readable. There are tiny traces of "travel magazine" scattered throughout the article in the form of a few adjectives, that would be better served by more neutral/generic terms. Maybe some of the adjectives could be reconsidered, but that's a very minor point. Rossrs 11:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll take a close look on the first para on the culture; yes, it is out of sync with the heading. As for the intro, my personal opinion is that all encyclopedic articles need an eye catching phrase there. Pompous true, but it must be truthful and colourful at the same time. Nichalp 20:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
I got what you said about the first para. Yeah, it was repetitive. I now merged the sentences. Also toned down the culture part. Nichalp 18:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think you've done a great job. You said about needing it to be truthful and colourful - I think also "lively" and the style is lively. Makes interesting reading.Rossrs 14:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delightful article. I would be hard pressed to improve on it. Deb 21:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks very good. I think the pictures can be bigger and the text less dense but that's more appearance than content. I think it's ready for FAC. --JuntungWu 17:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll do that, but I'll nominate the page next month as I have some prior commitments this week. I also have some loose ends to tie up on the page. Nichalp 20:12, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Elara (moon)[edit]

One of Jupiter's satellites is called Elara. It is a small moon, and very little is known about it.

Recently an image was added for it, at Image:Elara.jpg and commons:Image:Elara.jpg, and this image was also added to the pages at Wikipedias for other languages: pt:Elara, nl:Elara (maan), fr:Élara (lune) and ja:エラーラ.

Does anyone have a source for this image? Supposedly it's NASA, but no URL is given and I can't find any such image using Google or NASA search. The NASA pages simply say "very little is known about this moon". The image is suspiciously spherical for such a small moon; usually they would be irregular in shape.

Perhaps a hoax?

-- Curps 22:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The user who uploaded the photo gave the URL http://www.vesmirweb.net/galerie.php?adresar=mesice and http://www.vesmirweb.net/clanek.php?id=44#13

Many of these are legitimate images, but there is also a purported image of Lysithea (moon) that looks suspicious to me. -- Curps 22:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The moon Himalia (moon) orbits at about the same distance from Jupiter as Elara and Lysithea, only it's about 4 times their diameter. Yet the best-quality image we have of it is very poor: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Himalia

Searching JPL shows no images for Lysithea or Elara. See http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/PIADetQuery.html and "Search by Feature Name"

No images of Lysithea or Elara under the Jupiter page either: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Jupiter

-- Curps 22:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The vesmirweb.net image of "Lysithea" is really Saturn's moon Dione. Compare:

It seems safe to say that "Elara" is not really Elara, but can anyone identify it? -- Curps 23:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Turns out it's an image of Io:

Problem solved. -- Curps 00:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Decapolis[edit]

I am resubmitting this for review; see the Wikipedia:Peer review/Decapolis/archive1. I have been the main contributor, but I believe that it may be ready to be a FAC. Any thoughts or suggestions? Fishal 03:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's really cool that there is a map now (that was one of my comments in the previous PR request). However, what I don't like about that map is that it (1) is released under a non-free license and (2) contains an url and a site name. Especially (1) is something that doesn't fare so well on FAC. — mark ✎ 07:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even though we have permission to use it? (The URL has to stay because we don't have permission to alter it). Fishal 19:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The map maybe copyrighted, but the locations sure aren't. I could trace out the image outline and locations and upload it under GFDL. Anybody interested? Let me know on my talk page.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Cool! That's the best solution of course; and I think you can do a better job than they did (the present map is very grainy and low in resolution).
Re:Fishal — yes, it's a problem even though we have permission to use it because this permission is incompatible with our GFDL license (hence 'non-free'). There is an ongoing debate whether Wikipedia should allow this kind of limited permission images at all; they make it more difficult to distribute Wikipedia as a whole under the GFDL. — mark ✎ 20:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've made a new map based on the old one. I hope you'll didn't have any high expectations on my map skills. (I'm a novice at cartography). I've also deleted the old map since it was non free. (It can always be restored).  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Now that the image is fixed, are there any other problems with the article that should be addressed? Fishal 03:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The mention to the decapolis in the bible could use some changes, in my opinion. Matthew also mentions it ([2]), and some might not understand the importance of the herd of pigs comment. That either could be expanded to talk about why that means they were in "gentile" areas, or it just could be removed and more general information about Jesus' ministry be given. The biblical accounts, granted, don't give much, so while it's important to mention, it's ok if it's short, just as long as it's clear. --Spangineer ∞ 06:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is shorter than most other Featured Articles, perhaps you could expand it by talking more about the culture of the Decapolis cities? (specifically, could you talk more about the religious life of the region?) Perhaps you could talk about the history of the archeological digs in the area too?Dinopup 01:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sunset Boulevard (movie)[edit]

This seems to be a possible Featured article. This is my first time submitting an article to Peer review, so please let me know what may be wrong with the article. JesseW 05:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree - the film would make a great featured article. It needs quite a lot of work though, and needs to be expanded, and analysed in more depth. It's all possible though, because the film is one of the all time greats, there is bound to be a lot of resource material available. eg Billy Wilder, Gloria Swanson's autobiography etc. There must be a lot of critical comment available too. Casablanca (movie) was a Featured Article, so if you're looking for a point of reference that would be a good place to start. If you decide to work on it further, let me know, I'd be happy to help. Rossrs 10:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I've been intrigued with the idea of developing this article since it was listed here, so today I've added a lot of info, plus images. Just wanting to point out that I know what I've done is extremely rough. There is so far no critique of the film - and that's essential, so will work on that. I know the article as I've done it now, needs a lot of tidying up, but I wanted to make a start on it. Rossrs 14:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also have changed article name to just Sunset Boulevard (movie). If there were other significant films with the same title, it would be justified in having the year as part of the article name, but there haven't been. Rossrs 15:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There must be commentaries on the work somewhere, especially if it is a significant film. This is a good, brief overview, but is not comprehensive enough to be called a featured article. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Well, I'm delighted with the work that Rossrs has done. I didn't even realize how much more needs to be done. I don't personally wish to commit to finding and creating a critique section, so I guess this should remain in the archive. Thanks, Ta bu shi for reminding me of it. Good luck Rossrs, and everyone. JesseW 20:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia[edit]

This is a highly controversial subject, and the article has not caught the attention of many editors. It has to be reviewed to have its neutrality and accuracy established. Etz Haim 08:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, for a start we need references if we want to verify any of the information. Secondly, someone attempted to add images, but by linking them in from another site, which we don't do. Perhaps we could get some public domain/GFDL images? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu[edit]

This article has a note This article needs cleanup. It's far from perfect, but is no worse than 1000's of other non-perfect articles. There is nothing on the discussion page, but the history page shows frequent revisions. Apart from incompleteness, what is the problem with the current article? --Mount Pleasant 08:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've structured it and wikified a bit more. Looks fine to me now. Rd232 19:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I cleaned up the language slightly and sentence structure a little bit more. I think it could probably use more revisions in terms of grammer. Joseph Buchanan.

Looks fine now. --Karmafist 2 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)

Karl Marx[edit]

This seems to be not too far from Featured quality. Could do perhaps with a little more on his work (though without shading too much into discussion of Marxism which should be elsewhere). Any comments or interest in contributing? Rd232 14:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Too ignorant for informed comment on content I'm afraid, but I have a point about the references. On FAC, you will inevitably get asked for a list of sources. In spite of the various lists of printed and online works at the end of the article, the reader has no way of telling which works have been actually used as sources (=for supplying or verifying facts in the article). This is Taxman's hobby-horse, see Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems, and rightly so, in my opinion. The sources versus non-sources distinction is the important one to make, not the online versus printed works distinction. IMHO, a better set of sections at the end would be somethinig like:
    • Works by Karl Marx (incidentally, it's not clear to me why your Marx and Engels archive reference has a subordinated list of direct links to selected (?) texts appended, and the Gutenberg Karl Marx resource doesn't, but perhaps there are good reasons.)
    • References (online and printed works used as sources)
    • External links (online works not used as sources)
    • Further reading (printed works not used as sources)
I'm not personally any too happy about the logic of distinguishing between the last two, since I think online texts can be "read further" just as much as books can, but that's me; Wikipedia practice calls squarely for a separate "External links" section and the Manual of Style seems to assume there will be one.--Bishonen | Talk 03:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that it's very good, and very informative, but I agree that the reference section should be seperated from his list of written works and further reading. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code[edit]

Could we get some help on converting the point form to prose? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have sourced a much better image to replace [[Image:Wpdms davinci lastsupper marymagdalene.jpg]]. I will upload it, post the wikilink here and leave it to you to change it if you wish. --Zappaz 03:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here it is Image:Da Vinci The last supper.jpg, and the detail showing John or Mary Magdelene at the right of Jesus, is here Image:Da Vinci The last supper detail.jpg--Zappaz 03:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have updated that picture with a red arrow pointing to the supposed Mary Magdelene. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

I've made quite a few changes to this article recently; in summary, the size has gone down by 7Kb, the number of references has increased by 16, and it's hopefully better than it was before. However, considering it's, well, Wikipedia... the first link on Main Page, and one of the most-viewed articles, it's far from perfect. The talk page has a "to-do" list some of which I think has been addressed, though I've added some more things too. Some related articles still need a lot of work... Criticism of Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia and Wikipedia in popular culture, so a look at those would be appreciated too. I've made a couple of edits to them as well, but there's still a long way to go. Looking at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive, it seems very likely that Wikipedia will be the next collaboration in three days' time, so ideas for improvement here would give them things to work on too, which would be nice – Qxz 07:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update to say that User:WillowW has made some very helpful changes; the article now has a whole new section that tries to compare Wikipedia with other encyclopedias, and the size has gone up by 12Kb (perhaps a bit of a trim may be needed again, but I think the new material is useful). More references, too – Qxz 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some technical terms in this article, such as "mirroring" or "forking". They may need to be put in quotation marks to make it clear that they're somewhat uncommon terms. A more common word such as "vandalism" might also need this the first time it's used if they have a different meaning in Wikipedia's context. —msikma (user, talk) 17:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'll see what I can do about it – Qxz 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been doing excellent work to fix this article up, by the way. It was just inching along before, and one dedicated editor working on it for a short time is so much more useful than 10 minor edits per day. —msikma (user, talk) 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; I did a complete rewrite over four days, then copied the changes over. (You can look at the history of User:Qxz/Sandbox to see the whole process). I like to think I made an improvement; at the very least, I cleared the way for new content to be added, which has indeed happened. Not just me now, though, it looks like at least two others have joined in. Hopefully we can settle our differences and perfect the changes. More comments welcome, of course – Qxz 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some of weasel words in the article, unfortunately. Such as here. I changed the wording slightly, but "Wikipedia users generally do not consider Wales to be a dictator or to be one who gives non-negotiable orders." is still subjective. —msikma (user, talk) 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, someone should go through the article and place a [citation needed] on every single dubious claim. I'll help with this as well, although I'll be pretty busy the upcoming days (maybe weeks). Claims such as "The editors of any encyclopedia have a responsibility to keep its articles as free of bias as possible. Historically, even the best encyclopedias have suffered from bias; for example, the "Lynch Law" article of the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica describes the Ku Klux Klan as a "protective society" and unabashedly defends its actions." should be sourced. —msikma (user, talk) 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's WillowW's new section, which is barely a day old and I guess is still somewhat in draft form, at least insomuch as it's likely to change substantially in the next few days. I've removed or reworded some of the more biased stuff, and Bramlet Abercrombie's contributions reflect a similar concern, but the section fills what was previously something of a gap in the article. It just needs to be trimmed down (right now I think it's a bit more extensive than it needs to be), neutrally worded and cited where possible. Peppering the page with {{fact}}s won't necessarily help much, because we know it has problems. But I understand your point — it needs doing – Qxz 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be the most tedious work, but I also believe that we should use the proper citation templates in this article. As it is right now, lots of references are written in text, while they should be converted to proper Template:Cite web instances. This makes it easier not only to keep the references consistent, but it's also generally a good idea to use correct markup for an article (for screen scraping purposes et al.) —msikma (user, talk) 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All the web citations are in text form; partly because there's so many of them. As far as I'm aware there's no policy or guideline to say that we have to or should use those templates. Indeed it seems many editors prefer them in this form. But consistency is good – Qxz 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It generally is useful. If someone were to make a bot that could scrape all references from an article and then check whether they're still operational (and if not, grab an Archive.org link that's closest to the date the reference was accessed instead), it would be much more complicated to check every reference to see if it's a web reference. And even then, to find out which part of the reference contains the access date. Abstracting adds meta-data to the text. But it's probably of small concern at this point. —msikma (user, talk) 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Citations of generic sources:

    "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus."

    In other words, it's very definitely saying don't change them without consensus. I'm not sure I really want to have to start trying to get consensus to make a change like this – Qxz 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here, what's the reason for you posting that on my talk page? All I said was that I believe we should do this. I'm fully aware of the fact that these things need consensus, which is why I'm bringing it up here. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I believe we should, as the citation templates were made to make life easier. I'm not sure if you actually have an argument against using them (since all you did was mention that "there's no guideline that says we should"). —msikma (user, talk) 07:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the change in layout as a result of the thorough editing, the layout of the images in the article has gotten quite cluttered. It should be checked to see whether some pictures should be repositioned. —msikma (user, talk) 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think over the past week two images have been removed, and one has been added. The second half of the article seems to be lacking in images; unfortunately, I don't think there's really much that would be appropriate there `– Qxz 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems awkward, to me, that there are now only level 2 headings in the article. There isn't a single level 3 heading in here. Let's see if I can change that around a little... —msikma (user, talk) 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it's better with some level 3 headings. Many of the ones that got removed came as a result of "Criticism" being shrunk to a single paragraph and "Encyclopedic characteristics" being removed – Qxz 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the rewriting of this article, a lot of information was trimmed. The article became significantly smaller. However, there are some sections which genuinely seem skinny. Especially the "Academic evaluation", "Criticism and controversy" and "Related projects" sections are very short even though there is much information on these things as well. Some parts of these paragraphs have a gigantic amount of references for a very short amount of text; it should be noted that good encyclopedic prose isn't just about writing the neutral truth and then providing a reference for the claims, but it should also attempt to explain the subject matter thoroughly. I think that some information can be slightly rewritten to be more carefully worded. For example, "Scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived,[11] and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias.[12]" really doesn't have to be one sentence. Why not explain a bit more about what a "scholarly study" really means, and why Wikipedia is found to be accurate? The current version forces people to check out the footnotes, while they're really just references (and not simply external links). —msikma (user, talk) 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Criticism and controversy" has a whole article to itself, which is longer and goes into more detail, so that section only really needs to be a summary. I agree "Related projects" could be expanded (though again the individual projects have their own articles; the reader can refer to those if they want more detail) – Qxz 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually not just talking about the information, I'm also talking about the flow of the article. It's pretty bad prose as it is right now, for most of the article. Reading the talk page, I see that Willow has written a much better explanation of this. —msikma (user, talk) 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, in my opinion, this peer review is done. I can't think of any other particular things that need to be improved, although I do believe that especially the last point I made does require a lot of work. I hope that future editors will address at least that one. —msikma (user, talk) 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper hold[edit]

This is my first edit, which is also a major re-write. As such, I would greaty appreciate any comments about things I may be doing wrong or things that look fantastic. I was very careful in its writing, and I feel it is good as well as complete, but as it is my first article, I would love the opinion of the community here. DrWoody 05:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you must mean Sleeper Hold ;) But, apapert from that, I have a couple of suggestions:
  • Pictures - either a drawing or a picture of this hold.
  • More of the history behind it would be interesting, if you could trace it.
  • References, references, references... everytime I put somethign up for peer review, I'm asked for it, so I guess they are important ;)
Overall, an interesting piece. take that as justified praise from a layman, who's style of 'martial art' can be described as 'wild swings and headbutts' ;) WegianWarrior 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been looking around for a drawing or illustration that would help clarify the article, but this could take me a little time as I'm not familiar with all the copyright issues of wikipedia yet. I'll get it eventually, though. As far as references, I'm a little stuck. Pretty much 100% of the information in there is personal knowledge, and this knowledge was learned first-hand from another person. What is the proper way to make references in this case? And finally regarding the history, I am also interested in finding more in this area, but all of my efforts have turned up nothing so far. Google is flooded with 'sleeper hold' pages that only refer to the Pro Wrestling version, which is not very helpful to me =) Thanks for your input! DrWoody 07:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try [3]. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Very nicely written, the care you've taken shows. However, the title capitalization is non-standard, you need to rename it "Sleeper hold", see Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized, e.g. use John Wayne but Computer game." It's a simple procedure, you won't feel a thing: click tab "Move" and follow instructions. Agree with Wegian that references are necessary and a picture would be lovely. (Don't get the "you must mean.." bit.)--Bishonen | Talk 03:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I have changed the title to 'Sleeper hold'. I had noticed that small problem when re-writing the article, but someone else had originally titled it with both words capitalized and I was not sure if it was appropriate to move it =) See above regarding references. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "(Don't get the "you must mean.." bit.)". Thanks! DrWoody 07:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, doc. The copyright issues are basically that you can only use for instance a picture you find on the web if a) you can get permission from the copyright holder to release it under GFDL (unlikely) or b) it's really old, or the person who created it has been dead for 100 years (even more unlikely). I think your best bet would be to take a posed photo yourself and upload it, stating that you're relasing it under GFDL.
Your reference problem is a bit trickier than average, I must say. Do you think you'd be able to get any references by asking the person you learned it from? I don't know the subject well enough (trying unsuccessfully to sound like I have the slightest idea of the subject) to figure out a smart way of limiting a Google search—do you think you have exhausted that possiblity? (A simple "sleeper hold" minus ""professional wrestling" is no help, I see.) A third possibility: drop a note on User talk:Taxman and lay your referencing problem before him, he has given a lot of thought to the subject and believes, I think, that it's possible to find references for any article (if it's a legitimate article at all).
Sorry the "...you must mean" was confusing, it was no big deal, just that I was talking about agreeing with Wegian's comment and thought I'd better point out that I don't get what Wegian meant by saying "you must mean Sleeper Hold <wink>". Best, Bishonen | Talk 20:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami[edit]

This has gotten a lot of tlc recently; should be fac'able soon. Thoughts? There are probably many related articles it should be x-referenced with, and perhaps more attention should be given to other related terms of non-english origin. +sj + 17:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what you are asking for. I can't see much room for wikification, and (and as someone who studied tsunamis during oceanography modules at university) I have tried to keep the science on track as far as possible. Do you have more specific concerns? Dan100 21:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Since you're one of the people working on the article, you are not the audience I am hoping to attract by listing it for peer review :-) PR is a good way to get feedback about good articles from people who don't otherwise visit them, but have a strong sense of style. +sj + 13:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As a lifelong student of Japanese language, I have a pet peeve about the word tsunami in English. The plural of tsunami is tsunami, not tsunamis. From a style perspective all plurals should follow Japanese convention. Revmachine21 05:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The plural in English is "tsunamis". Just like the plural in French of cameraman is cameramans. The borrowing language need not respect the plural-formation rules of the source language. -- Curps 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we should make it tsunami in this case. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The word has entered English and takes English plural. From dictionary.com: n. pl. tsu·na·mis. It's even got an adjective, tsunamic, which sure isn't Japanese. RickK 05:38, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
If you can cite a good example of this "tsunami" as plural, I might change my mind. But you'll note that the link header that was changed to "-nami" is actually titled "-namis." I find no use of "tsunami" as plural in the usual news sources in English. It's an oddity of transliteration similar to, say, "perogies". . . Zosodada 05:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
English borrows words indiscriminately from many other languages, and plurals are always formed according to English rules — the only historical exception is Latin (and perhaps Ancient Greek) because Latin was a compulsory subject in schools until a few decades ago. Otherwise, English speakers would have to memorize hundreds of exotic plurals on a case-by-case basis for every single word with a foreign etymology. Should the English plural of "sheik" be "shuyukh" (sp?) because that is the plural in Arabic? -- Curps 05:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See List of English words of Japanese origin... the English plural of "futon" is "futons", the English plural of "tycoon" is "tycoons". -- Curps 06:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Revmachine cited an "edit fast" site which suggests looking in the dictionary to solve these dilemmas. My English dictionary says "tsunamis" (pl). Curps is correct. Making "Tsunami" plural here would be instituting a new convention, but I don't think that is the intent of Wikipedia. Perhaps, however, it should be noted at the Wiktionary. Zosodada 06:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I would consider myself to mainly be a bystander in the Tsunami discussion. The only comment I have is that "tsunami" and "tsunamis" are both acceptable plural forms in the English language. Neither one is wrong from an English standpoint. And trust me about this: I think most casual readers of the article will not notice which form you use. In other words, few people will consider this a big deal. If worst comes to worst, why don't you just have a vote to decide which one is most preferable. Oh, and as a reference, see the tsunami entry in Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary. It lists both forms as plural. ~ Wang123 20:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh by the way, although foreign words that enter English often acquire English pluralization rules, this is not always the case. Sometimes a word retains its rules from the original language. And since we're talking about Japanese, I'll provide a Japanese example. Take the word "samurai" for instance. This word retains its Japanese form when plural, which is samurai. Refer to the samurai entry in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. ~ Wang123 20:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stinging nettle[edit]

Wondered what needs done before nomination to featured status. DAVODD 08:57, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd be interested in reading more about the various species and why, at one point, there were more species recognised than there are now. After a bit of Googling, I came across this interesting FAQ, which suggests one alternative use(!). It suggests that the Wikipedia article could be expanded somewhat. A few extra photos (such as the closeup of the hairs and leaf in the FAQ) would be good, too. The FAQ also contradicts our article in some places, "Depending on individual opinion there are some 50 to 100 species of Stinging Nettle in the world." and "Various substances have been claimed as being the active principles of nettle venom, based on speculation and supposition. In fact the venom is a cocktail of three substances, each highly dilute: histamine, acetylcholine and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine)." — we probably need to cite sources. — Matt Crypto 09:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've made some style edits and broken the article into several sections. I did this not because there's enough material there now to justify it, but because I'd like to see each of those topics developed more fully. In general, it feels like there's a lot of missing information and inconsistencies; hopefully the sections will help you develop the article more fully. Here's some starting points:
    • What subspecies is native to Asia? Which have been introduced to South America? Does the European subspecies exhibit such agressive invasiveness in N. America as it shows in its native Europe?
    • What environments could it potentially thrive in? Does it withstand frost? Is it a perennial? Annual? Does it flower? When / how? Picture? What is its range in Europe? Asia? S. America? What are the biological limits on its range?
    • Biology of plant in general could be greatly expanded; also, a more thorough discussion of its stinging organs (a diagram would be especially helpful here). How does the plant grow? Propagate? How big is it? Is any animal resistant to its sting? Does it affect other plants?
    • Not sure on the appropriateness of including a recipe (others have well-developed opinions on this; I'll let them step in on the issue)
    • Would like to see more historical context on uses. What is it believed to cure as an herbal remedy? What cultures use it that way? How long ago did they start doing it? Have any modern medicines been developed based on / using nettles? Dietary supplements? Are the uses based on the stinging property, or in spite of it?
Of course, the facts need to be accurate, which it sounds from Matt's comment above that there may be some questions on. Sources sources sources. A pain in the neck, but vital when there is a disputed or commonly mistaken fact. I think the article has a lot of potential, but there's lots left to write! Bantman 06:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Lord's Resistance Army[edit]

For some time now, I have the feeling that this article is ready for WP:FAC. Some peer review however would be extremely welcome. — mark ✎ 20:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's an excellent article. I'll look over it carefully, and I invite others to help. Mtrisk 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Change bibliography to references, shift it to before external links. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Done. Renamed umbrella section "Links and references". - BanyanTree 05:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Simpsons[edit]

This article recently failed a FAC. I have taken care of the things people objected to in that nomination and would like to know what needs to be done in order for it to become a FA. --Maitch 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to be hard on this one because you want it to be an FA and said that it failed already. So here are some comments:

  • Second paragraph feels flighty.
  • Third paragrph 1st sentence, needs to be reworked. Simplify and include use a specific date rather than "to date."
  • This is way too long for a FA. The recommended length is 30KB, but I think they really are around 40-50... this is 63KB. Go over the article and scrutinize the entire thing cutting it down by about 18KB! It's a pain in the butt, but will be worth the effort. What sections are necessary? Which ones can you get rid of? The article seems to try to be all things to all people. You're going to need to decide what the purpose is and focus on that and use other articles to cover what you don't get to here. I cut out about 10K from my article on military brats
  • The TOC is also pretty long and intimidating. I would be surprised if 20% of the people reviewing this for FA read the whole thing---even if they are fans!
  • Movie section needs to be completely reworked. Looks like it was written before the Movie was finalized.
  • No offense, but the writing style is repetitive. It feels as if the sentence structure is the same throughout the article... for example, the Merchandise section:
    • Many episodes of the show have been released on DVD and VHS over the years
    • Many posters involving Simpsons characters are available for purchase
    • Many characters are available to buy in figurine form
  • The Merchandise section would be a section that I would consider making into a separate article and expanding.

My biggest criticism of the article is that it is all over the place. Tighten this article up...Balloonman 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try and work with it. I would like to add that there are FA's at over 90 KB, but I agree that it is not as tightly written as possible and the main problem is the "Merchandise" section. Most of it on the other hand is already summarized with a lot of information moved to subarticles. The movie is not finalized and is scheduled to be released 27 July 2007. I take no offense on writing styles or anything else. This article is a product of a lot of people making minor edits. I'm trying to shape it up to a complete article. --Maitch 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a lot of the 'merchandise' section. The editing may seem a bit bold, but it had to be done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs)
You removed the entire thing plus several other sections. It was reverted by another user and I think he made the right move. Being bold doesn't mean that you have to delete everything that isn't perfect. --Maitch 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Wesleyan University[edit]

On December 6th, DaveOinSF suggested that we go through a final peer review process for the article so that we can finalize improvements and get it to FA status. Thanks to several people and their extensive comments, we were able to improve the article tremendously from comments from the last FA nomination. Any further comments on what the remaining critical areas are will be greatly appreciated. WikiprojectOWU 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG[edit]

  • 206 references? Have you made use of named refs, in the event you have any repeats, so that they'll all report to one line? Have a look at citing a footnote more than once, in case that applies. I did an example for you in the Perkins Observatory section (and changed the title of the webpage to what was on the page.) I did another on the University of Delaware Huddleston site, showing you how to use named refs, and also adding in the missing publication date. I also used a named ref on Peabody. By doing these things, I reduced your number of references from 206 to 200: you can probably do much more consolidating.
    • I did double-check all references...I couldn't see repeats that could use named footnotes. WikiprojectOWU 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On book references that you use repeatedly, rather than chunking up the footnotes with repeated information, have a look at the change I just made, which is something you can do throughout. (See Hubbart). If you repeatedly reference page nos from other books, you can do the footnotes that way. Pls provide ISBNs for books.
    • I included all the other books in the Reference section. WikiprojectOWU 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When fixing the Hubbart references, I noticed several instances where you had a sentence referenced to page x, and the very next sentence referenced to page x+1. I combined those instances into one reference, from pp. x-x+1. This will help consolidate your references.
    • I double-checked and there shouldn't be other instances of this. WikiprojectOWU 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix all your redlinked access dates - either don't link them at all, or link them correctly so they're not red. You have some access dates not linked at all, others redlinked, and others bluelinked.
  • You don't include publication dates on news items - for example, there was a date on a News Archive item that should be included in the footnote. On news sources, make sure you also give the author, when there is one.
  • On some of your footnotes, you say the source is owu, on others, you say Ohio Wesleyan University - pls be consistent in your footnotes.
  • Some of your footnotes are URLs - please label them as you did the others.
  • Some of your footnotes have last name, first name on author first, others have the author imbedded elsewhere in the note. Use a consistent style on your footnotes. (last name, first name)
  • The lead is not a compelling summary of the article: see WP:LEAD.
    • We restructured it and it should answer the majors points outlined in WP:LEAD. Any suggestions on improving it? WikiprojectOWU 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size: on FAC, some may object to 82KB overall size - I ran a prose check, and the prose is a very decent 38 KB, so the large size is due to all the cite templates in the references.
    • This shouldn't be a problem for the FA, right? WikiprojectOWU 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've used cite web for news sources (you should use cite news), so all of the information needed isn't given - see the BBC news ref towards the end of the article. It needs author, publication date, etc.
    • I will fix that...I just left a message for you regarding this part. WikiprojectOWU 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help with POV and prose issues raised on your last FAC, but they should be addressed before re-approaching FAC - I only looked at referencing, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:MOS. Good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From AZPR|AZ[edit]

  • Wow, great job with the referencing . . . I even remember someone objecting for over-referencing on a FAC (though I don’t believe this should be a problem if the ref name attributes are used). BTW, there are typos on footnotes #57, 75 and 158.
  • Besides the referencing, I don't believe there are other (significant) style/layout problems. However, the prose is a problem:
  • In the lead, we have (w/o the footnotes):
  • Founded in 1842 by Methodist leaders and Central Ohio residents, provides that it "is forever to be conducted on the most liberal principles. misplaced modifier; the college, not the college's charter, was founded by the people
  • In 2006, Ohio Wesleyan had among the ten highest percentage of international students for liberal arts colleges, a position the school has held for twelve consecutive years. the first part is awkward writing, try rephrasing
  • The first paragraph of "Founding" is somewhat confusing due to the order it is presented in; the description of the hotel goes after the its purchasing.
  • A Board of Trustees was incorporated, a charter was secured from the legislature on March 7, 1842. run-on; split into two sentences or rewrite
    • The new intro, after we restructured it, fixed that problem! WikiprojectOWU 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The document was edited by Joseph Trimble, and gave wide powers to a board to be composed of twenty-one persons. Who is Joseph Trimble (give us a wikilink or a designation, like …Charles Elliott, leaders of the local…)? to be composed is needlessly redundant.
  • The college originally admitted only male students, and began with an 29 students and three professors. It was housed in the renamed Elliott Hall, formerly the Mansion House Hotel. Who does "it" refer to (shouldn't it be they)? It would probably be better to mention the renaming above in the first paragraph, so that we don't have to refer to the formerly… part.
    • Clarified reference and expanded the sentence. WikiprojectOWU 08:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 5, 1846, the first president Edward Thomson delivered his inaugural address. He maintained that the college was a product of the liberality of the people of Delaware and that it was fortunate that Ohio Wesleyan was founded in a community divided in religious and political opinions because the friction of a mixed society prevented dogmatism and developed energy and pointed out that the spirit of the college is the spirit of liberty. second sentence too long, split it up and make it less wordy. Place your cursor over underlined words to see my other notes.
  • Thomson and his successors her vocal in other political debates of the time — namely slavery and the expansion of the United States.[18] Edward Thomson, president of Ohio Wesleyan in 1857, denounced the argument that southern Christians "should retain their slaves in obedience to state laws forbidding manumission," saying that "the soft and slippered Christianity which disturbs no one, is not the Christianity of Christ."
  • Unfortunately, all of this is from the first couple of sections. User:Tony1 has a useful guide to help in further copyediting. Otherwise, great job! AZ t 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ruhrfisch[edit]

I agree that this article represents a lot of work and has improved since I last looked at it. It is getting closer to FA, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed. I have made some of these comments on User:WikiprojectOWU's talk page already, but am copying the ones that are still applicable here and adding a few more observations.

  • Although the lead paragraphs are read first, they should be written last. Wait until the article is about ready, then go through and make sure each header and subheader is at least mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Everything in the lead should be in the article. Footnotes in the lead paragraphs are held to a minimum (usually cite the ref in the body).
  • Be as specific as possible and avoid vague generalities (for example give the exact distance from Columbus, not about 25 miles, or give the exact day and month that the first classes were held, not just the year, and avoid terms like "currently"). What was the original name (the article says it was founded as a college - Ohio Wesleyan College? If OWU was original name, say that). The sub-article History of Ohio Wesleyan University says it was a school for younger students first, then the "College of Liberal Arts" was founded. Is this the original name? Great job on starting sub-articles, by the way. If giving statistics, give the year (as of 2004) and the exact figures.
  • Avoid duplication - for example Methodism is wikilinked three times in just the first six paragraphs, and you really don't need two pictures each of the Sulphur Spring or of Branch Rickey (so just pick the best one). Do you also need three different photos of the sports facility? I like the Student Protest / Activism photo that was in DYK - why was it taken out?
    • Fixed. It was taken out because of POV concerns by another editor. WikiprojectOWU 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent. Photos should be the same size for their format, horizontal ones the same width, vertical ones the same smaller width (you can perhaps break this rule if you need to show more detail in the photo). The photo captions refer to the "Sulphur Spring" and the "Sulphur Springs" - which is it? Make sure section headers fit the text described - classes start before the section titled Classes start.
  • Remember that you are telling a story. Put things in chronological order unless there is some strong reason not to. The second History section, titled Classes start, covers dates from 1846 to 1990, then the third (next) section is vaguely back in the "mid-19th century" (and talks yet again about the founding, something already addressed in the first section). Read and think of gaps in the story - the charter was 1842, the doors opened in 1844, but the first president was not inaugurated until 1846? Who ran the place before that? What is the Dartmouth University case (the link does not tell this) and why does it matter? Make connections explicit (I assume Elliot Hall is named for one of the founders - if so, why not say so?). What are Edgar Hall and Austin Manor? Several references are made to presidents (I know a previous version of the history was mostly organized in terms of presidents). I would include a small table of the presidents and their years in office (it would take as much space as a picture).
  • Use pictures to advance the story being told. Try to put photos in places that add to the story (so why is the photo of Elliot Hall, the oldest building on campus, at the bottom of the article and not up with the description of the founding?}. Captions have to be concise, and should add to the story. The Doric Front image is in the right place, and the caption is interesting, but too long (and yet not detailed enough to tell the whole story). What about something like this as a caption "Slocum Hall (left), Thomson Chapel, and Elliot Hall formed the "Doric Front" from 185x to 188x, when the chapel was demolished. Elliot Hall was moved in 19xx." Then mention these buildings in the history as well. If a building is important enough to have a picture, try to explain a bit about it - when built, what its purpose was and is. What about a picture of students in class to go with all the outdoor shots?
    • Fixed the article to take these suggestions into account. WikiprojectOWU 00:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, be aware that the authors are often the best copyeditors simply because others do not have the necessary information. For example, there is this sentence: "Between the years 1876 and 1888, enrollment in the college increased three times and music education experienced a decided renaissance, though no major buildings were built during this time." I think it means that enrollment tripled (went up by a factor of three), not that there were increases in enrollment three times in 12 years. However, since I do not have a copy of Hubbart to check, I can't really correct this. The article also later mentions a school of Fine Arts being founded the same year as the Music program. Did the Fine Arts not experience a renaissance? The raw materials are mostly there, but they still need some work. I hope this helps and would be glad to look this over again when it is almost ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point. I rephrased the language to make it clearer. WikiprojectOWU 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From BS[edit]

  • Lead paragraphs: To further tighten and focus them on the key facts about OWU, I'd suggest:
    1) Drop the quote from the college charter. The first sentence already says OWU is a liberal arts college. It is unclear what else this quote adds. Is "most liberal principles" referring to political liberalism (no), or is it saying there will never be any professional (non liberal arts) instruction at OWU? The quote raises questions instead of answering them, and most importantly dilutes an otherwise strong first paragraph.
    • I did restructure the lead to take into account why the quote is essential-to welcome all groups. I will change the quote to link to American liberalism, which centers about liberty, not political liberalism. WikiprojectOWU 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


2) The 2 most notable alumni are people the reader will almost certainly never have heard of, so the impression is left that nobody famous came from OWU, so why mention it in the lead? I think the paragraph would be stronger without that sentence. Having famous alums is not a key distinguishing feature of OWU (or most schools), anyway.

    • Should the inclusion of names answer the question "Who is famous?" or "Why is it important?" Scientific discoveries on topics related to ozone depletion and global warming are incredibly important...unless someone finds it controversial? WikiprojectOWU 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


3) The second sentence in the third paragraph sounds like it is explaining how the 200 acres were calculated. It weakens the otherwise key points in the paragraph, so I would drop it. Details about the campus can be included below.
Thanks! Bob schwartz 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did include it right next to the first sentence (see Cornell's FA page...it does the same thing). WikiprojectOWU 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Senators[edit]

I am not so familiar with that university, in fact I don’t even know were Ohio is (I am from Australia) but the article looks good.

  • good amounts of information
  • large amounts of footnotes
  • standard amount of wikilinks

But I am worried about all those footnotes, are you sure there is not any repeated lines. There needs to be more pictures of the college itself, and please can we make the article “user friendly” what that means make the article more understandable so it invites the readers in for more. Sorry I didn’t have time to spell check the article but I will try in the future. Could you please (when you get time) check over my article Ford BA Falcon I am trying to get it to Good article status. Recommend my article to your other reviewers. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by more pictures of the college? There are several in the article. I would love to hear what you mean by more understandable. This is probably a neglected area that, I might focus on in the future if you have more specific suggestions. WikiprojectOWU 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From bobanny[edit]

Looks good – obviously a lot of work has been poured into this thing. Its main weaknesses seem to be problems typical of an article that has had a lot of editors in its development, i.e., it’s a bit clunky in some areas that should be smoothed out and has some consistency problems. The content generally seems to be all there, but it still needs a bit of elbow grease.

  • Academic information should be more prominent in the article generally, since that’s the raison d’etre of a university. I had to go a quarter down the page before I found out that science was its strongest area (I think it’s strong, it’s described as a bias). There should be something in the introduction characterizing the school academically.
    • I just added more information in the profile in response to this one. WikiprojectOWU 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is much too long, especially since there’s a separate history article (which looks shorter than this section!). Much of this belongs in that article. All that’s needed here is a concise overview, which ideally would summarize the main history article and mention some of the big moments. Another option is to give some historical content to other sections where appropriate. For example, the information on the rate of PhDs cranked out could go in the “Academics” section. History is like English: it should be used to make the other stuff better rather than confined to its own little section.
  • Sections and subsections should begin with a topic sentence to introduce the whole section. For example, the “Today” subsection of history begins with: “The new Science Center opened in 2004 to house all of the school's science departments,” which seems to hit you out of the blue with lead-up. (Other sections are great on this, like “Organizations and activities). Another problem one is “Profile” under the Academics section, which begins by bombarding the reader with stats. Start with the general, then move to specifics. Also, sections could use a general introduction as well, rather than just launching right into subsections.
    • I tried to fix this one for the sections that you brought up. WikiprojectOWU 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure could use some reorganization to better capture the themes that permeate the article. One suggestion is to change “Activism” to “Social Justice” and group those related things that are currently scattered through the article, such as university affirmative action-type policies and accessibility issues, progressive student organizations, as well as the usual political demonstration type stuff. I believe this would help counter criticism of this section that was brought up elsewhere.
  • Double check the wikilinks. For example, LGBT is linked several times, and “international” (the international house) leads to a disambiguation page. Try and make the links as useful (i.e., specific) as possible, and terms should only be linked the first time they are used (or second, because blue links should be minimal in the introduction).
    • Fixed.
  • Make sure the ‘needing copy-edit’ and ‘invalid ISBN’ labels are eliminated (justifiably, of course).(Btw, its an ISSN for Atlantic Monthly and other periodicals, not ISBN (books) as the note in the “further reading” section indicates --- you don’t need to use ISSN).
    • I fixed the ISBNs...some of the books are too old to have them. WikiprojectOWU 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a thorough copy-edit. Several technical errors, such as this sentence: “During the mid-19th century, the school focused as on curriculum and fund raising” which makes no sense as it is written. A lot of minor things, but this stuff needs to be squeaky clean for it to become featured.
    • Bluedog423 helped me a lot with that section so this is no longer a problem. WikiprojectOWU 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about using periods in acronyms. Some have them, like U. S., others don’t, like OWU, and some are both, like PhD/Ph.D. Personally, I say get rid of the periods. Also, upper/lower case in “the University/university,” which changes throughout the article.
  • Get rid of the red wikilinks. Either create a stub for them, or just take out the brackets if you can’t imagine someone taking the time to write a decent article on the subject.
    • Done.
  • Make sure all the internet sources cited are useful. The first one I checked was this one, and it took a bit of looking to find the OWU connection. There’s over 200 cites listed in the “notes” section, which is huge. Huge is great, but when I first saw how many were there, I wondered how much of it was padding. Generally, you only need one source per point (quote, statistic, piece of information, etc.), and if the cite serves as an example, you don’t really need more than two. The university’s pro-active support and recruitment of LGBT students has seven, and by that point in the article it’s all triple digit numbers. This can be distracting to read, and I’m guessing that by the seventh one, the point has already long been made and sufficiently supported. A bunch others have 4, which might be reasonable in some cases, but make sure they serve a purpose. As a rule of thumb, only when something is controversial or has been challenged do you need to pummel the reader with supporting evidence.
    • True. Somebody else noted that if something exists it doesn't need a reference. I read the article to eliminate unnecessary references. However, I do think that statements need to be referenced. Controversial statements have more references. WikiprojectOWU 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with this and congrats on how far you’ve already come with this article, Bobanny 10:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Nick Mks[edit]

Following the request at my talk page, I took a look at this article, even though its subject is not my speciality. My remarks:

  • There seem to be many references. Unless there is some kind of controversy about every statement, I'd get rid of some minor ones or at least combine different refs to the same work.
    • Controversy did exist related to several topics. On others, it was recommended that every fact should be cited{user:Indrian). WikiprojectOWU 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people seem to have problems with language style. Even though I didn't read every sentence, this should be fixed as much as possible, which shouldn't be too much of a problem.
    • This is a critical area for the article and any recommendations on who might be willing to help will be appreciated! WikiprojectOWU 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, there is an (alleged) POV problem. I'm afraid this is bad news. I can obviously say nothing about the content, but discussions should really be settled before trying FA.

That's it for now. Maybe I'll throw in some more later. Nick Mks 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • That was about one section and a consensus was reached almost a month ago on how to eliminate it. WikiprojectOWU 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Lovelac7[edit]

Hope you had a good holiday. Here's a few quick comments, in random order. I'll add more later if I think of anything:

  • The history section is particular is still too long. Spin some of it off to the daughter article. That's what I did, and now History of Michigan State University is an FA as well.
  • I never thought I'd say this, but there are too many footnotes. It's hard to read and harder to edit. My suggestions:
    • Some of your footnotes link to as many as six references. (See #110). Try to make it one source per footnote. Pick the most reliable and unbiased source of each of these long footnotes.
      • True, there is a history for these footnotes being the result of thorough documentation for everything said on a controversial claim earlier in the article's history. WikiprojectOWU 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you scale back some of your sections, you can take out some of the references, and vice versa. Again, don't let this research go to waste. Just move it to a daughter article, improve the readability of this article and the reliability of the others. Specifically:
      • That Hubbart book sounds like a good read, but I don't think we need so many footnotes alluding to it. Pick out the two or three most controversial statements, and cite them. Move everything else to the daughter article.
      • You can move a lot of the stuff about the city of Delaware to that article - footnotes and all.
        • Which parts in particular? I did take a look - all parts in that section deal with Delaware in the context of town-gown initiatives. WikiprojectOWU 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need references to things that aren't controversial. Is there any doubt that VP Charles Fairbanks went to your school? If not, just wikilink to his article.
      • Will double-check and remove the redundant references. WikiprojectOWU 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start from the top and look for redundant wikilinks. Pell Grants and a cappella are both linked twice within their respective paragraphs. Selby Field is linked in three consecutive picture captions.
  • Try to make all of your paragraphs roughly the same size. In particular, go out of your way to avoid one or two sentence paragraphs. There's nothing wrong with such a thing per se but these short paragraphs are the result of multiple editors starting their own paragraphs in their own voices. Many anon edits add paragraphs like these, and they often read something like, "In addition the OWU (fill-in-the-blank) club is an important part of life at OWU." The Branch Riley and Norman Vincent Peale sentences also fall into this category. Mergre these into cohesive paragraphs.
    • Fixed. I tried to make the roughly the same size. WikiprojectOWU 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for now. It's getting late here in Samoa, so I'll talk to you more later. Lovelac7 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Bluedog423[edit]

Here are suggestions I left on the user's talk page on December 25, 2006 after performing a brief copyedit of the History section. I am copying it here so that it is more readily available for everybody else since most of these issues have not been addressed:

  • 1.) Footnotes come at the end of punctuation. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation. Sometimes, there is a reference cited in the middle of a sentence without any punctuation. I personally like them at the end of sentences instead of after a comma because it just looks messy, but it doesn't seem to be against the manual to put them after commas. But definitely can't just be after a word.
  • 2.) The profile section is a bit too long. Mainly, the details about Ph.D. graduates are really not that important. People care more about things like aspects of the student body. Also, an entire paragraph that includes quotes (which definitely aren't interesting at all and thus ought to be paraphrased even if they were significant) about females in academia is completely unnecessary and harms the focus of the section. OWU stats are not even that much different than the national stats, so I would consider dumping that whole paragraph. Things like SAT averages are not even mentioned, and that's the kind of stuff people who read the article care about. Also, the information under student life should probably be under the profile section, as it is a profile of the student body.
  • I fixed that section and moved the text from student life into this one. WikiprojectOWU 07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.) Don't start sentences with numerals. e.g. "59% of Ohio Wesleyan students" should instead begin "Fifty-nine percent...."
  • 4.) The student life lead section is very choppy and is a bombardment of facts at times. Try to make it more cohesive and flowing.
  • I tried to improve it but if it still needs work, let me know. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5.) When you are quoting something you use "quotation marks" not italics.
  • 6.) You don't need to provide a source to state that something exists. You need references to back up claims. In this following example, the references add nothing except now we can be certain that they exist, yay: "The Daily Bulletin[125] is the student-run daily bulletin. Other student publications include the weekly The Transcript,[126] the electronic Connect2OWU,[127] @Wesleyan,[128] an online magazine published four times a year, and several academic publications, such as The Civic Arts Review[129] and The Historian,[130] a journal of contemporary and relevant historical scholarship." If you say something like, "The Transcript has a daily readership of 5,000" then that should be cited. But merely stating that it exists doesn't require a reference.
  • 7.) Sports are not capitalized. e.g. chess, hockey, skiing, etc. I shouldn't be finding things like this at this point.
  • 8.) Alumni section is still a bit choppy. Consists of short, stubby paragraphs.
  • 9.) Organizations and activities still seems like a list. I'd suggest to choose the most significant things and expand on them slightly. What impacts the most OWU students? That's what should be focused on.
  • 10.) Going along with my point 9, things that impact very few students probably don't deserve mentioning. Although sometimes it is appropriate to give a brief summary of a few representative organizations; and I can deal with that. Likewise, aspects that are mundane probably can be deleted too. For example, do we really need an entire paragraph stating that commencement exists? Probably not. Is a sentence about midnight breakfast really necessary? We have that at my school, too. Does that really add anything to the article? I think there are a lot of random organizations mentioned and facts presented that can be deleted. Add more subarticles if you want to have this information somewhere. This article is supposed to include the most imperative things about OWU. If you had 15 minutes to explain OWU to somebody, what would you include? I do not think it would be that the Pell grant averages are similar to "Vassar College, Reed College, Colorado College and Hampshire College.[113]" Things like that are not important. Stating the percentage is fine, but anymore than that is beating it over the head. Plus, naming those colleges tell us nothing as they could have been hand selected. If you said this is among the highest 100 institutions in the nation, that actually gives us information.
  • I removed some of the unnecessarily mundane traditions. Same with some of the student organizations. BryanD reworded the Pell Grant discussion, so let me know if it still further work. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11.) Flow is sometimes an issue. The article should be telling the reader a story that they can easily read from start to finish. The main sections that need improvement in this regard are "Organizations and activities" and "Traditions."
  • I read the entire article to watch for flow. Where necessary, I made changes. If there are specific examples that jump out at you, let me know. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12.) Also, the lead could probably be a bit longer for an article of this size. A couple of more sentences would be appropriate. Maybe include a sentence about activism or traditions or the profile something. Those seem to have more information in the text than recent construction, for example. The lead is supposed to summarize the article; not add new information. Everything contained in the lead should be contained with the text of the article as well (I may have been at fault at this point, though, in my article too; but you should strive to be even better than past FA's!)
  • I added a sentence a few days back about academics and I will another one regarding activism, traditions or profile something. Thank you again for your very helpful suggestions!WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it for now. Good luck again! -Bluedog423Talk 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Posted by/on Bluedog423Talk 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFB Shilo[edit]

Well, this is my first big leap into the wonderful world of Peer Review. Any suggestions would be helpful. Please don't bite the noob. Size of this page is apparently becoming a problem, please comment to the CFB Shilo Discussion page Weaponofmassinstruction 06:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this subject, so I will restrict myself mainly to comments on style and structure.
  • My first impression is that the article is too fragmented. Either there are too much headings, or the paragraphs are too short. If you're not planning to expand the article significantly, I'd cut down on the headings.
  • The article lacks sources/references. If the two external links are your only sources, it might be a good idea to indicate them as such.
  • Bolding headings is not in accordance with the Manual of Style. I fixed it for you, along with fixing a typo.
Hope this gives you a start! — mark ✎ 15:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go (verb)[edit]

I wrote this article as an adaptation of an assignment for an English class I was taking, and I believe it would benefit from greater scrutiny. The article addresses the etymology of Go, and while I would appreciate help from qualified linguists and/or those who know quite a bit about historical linguistics, simple copyediting and stylistic suggestions would be helpful. I've written a first draft here, and I think that the help of a few linguists would benefit the article greatly.Zantastik 04:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

References... I'm sure you have some. Also, I was always told to write in full instead of using acronyms - I guess ME means Middle English, but what is PIE? More about how it relates to other germanic languages might be neat too, even if it's just a line or two. WegianWarrior 05:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
content ʘ From its title, it is not clear why the article would cover only the morphology etymology of the verb go in English. I think it would make sense to include some syntax and semantics as well.
style ʘ First, get rid of the first person perspective altogether. Also, the style is sometimes too inquiring, I think.
— mark ✎ 17:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. I think the article could begin with a few illustrations of the verb and its forms in sentences, and more examples can be inserted in other sections. Long sentences need breaking up, in my opinion. And the section on the Latin ǐre and ambition seems like an unimportant tangent. The article has lots of very good information, but a few stylistic changes like that will make it able to communicate better. Fishal

Peer review is not the appropriate place for this request. Peer review is for articles that are close to being Featured Articles. If you want people to come to a page and comment on it, what you want is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Rigby (song)[edit]

The Beatles song off of Revolver that is. Self-nom. This article has already been through peer review and a FAC nomination. It's gone through a lot of structural changes since then, and I definitely think it's up to FAC quality now. Any suggestions? Thanks! --The PNM 22:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article a lot; it's very nice. I could come up with only two ideas for improvement:
  1. Seems like there's a little internal contradiction about coming up with the name "Father McKenzie"... Paul thinking "Dad's a happy lad" and leafing through the phonebook, and Pete Shotton suggesting the change.
    • Good points -- the contradiction comes because of the two sources -- McCartney, in an interview right after the song, said HE did it, and Shotton, years later, said he did it. I imagine that McCartney is a much more reliable source, especially seeing as how he WROTE the song, and since the interview is from the year he song was released, so I deleted Shotton's claim to make it interally consistent. Thanks for pointing that out! --The PNM 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Japanese album cover seems out of place, only because it features the band in a live performance, and we're talking about a song never perfomed live.
    • I'll start looking for some fair use art I could use there instead. I guess it probably does give the wrong impression.--The PNM 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few one-sentence paragraphs. Also, there are several short paragraphs, especially in "Releases" Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got rid of all those one paragraphers and in the releases section make a larger graf (and made it flow better). What do you think about it now? Thanks! --The PNM 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric W. Weisstein[edit]

I wrote this article some time ago and think that it is fairly okay, but I'd like some comments on how to improve it if anyone is at all interested in taking a look. I'd really appreciate it! Thank you, -SocratesJedi 06:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like it, it's basically well written and on an interesting subject, though it could do with a little copyedit and removal of an occasional whiff of promotespeak ("a vast array of subjects"). I'll try to find the time later to do a little of it myself if nobody else does. Objections:
Lead should be expanded with something about why Mathworld and Scienceworld matter, not just mention them. According to the article, they constitute his main claim to fame, so they need to be in focus in the lead, too.
I think the Education section is too detailed to interest anybody but his mother. Compare the amount of detail on education in this CV that you link to, that seems about right to me.
This link [4] is malformed/dead: it revives if you remove one world, but then it redirects to mathworld "search", so I guess it wants fixing
The image is copyright and used with permission, which does not include third-party use. When I tried to use an image with limited permission like that in October, and asked on the Pump if it was OK, several people told me it had just become non-OK. Apparently Jimbo had just decreed that from then on it was going to be either a) unconditional permission or PD, or b) don't use it. I guess you're still OK, with your September upload, but you won't be indefinitely. Do you think it might be possible to persuade Weisstein to release it unconditionally? Hope this helps a little, --Bishonen | Talk 23:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I guess it didn't? SocratesJedi, since you seem to be around the place and editing other pages, do you have plans for showing that appreciation any time soon, like by replying to the points or addressing them on Eric W. Weisstein?--Bishonen | Talk 08:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/January_2005&oldid=192782218"