Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Misplaced Pages's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than three months.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
Considering this is probably the biggest internet phenomenon there has ever been this is a pretty shocking article. I think we can get it to Ga standard at least. Buc17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
need to verify the article so that you can ensure that all of the citations are being used properly (and then remove the cleanup tag).
Citations should be listed at the end of sentences containing direct quotations, so that you know where the quote was taken from.
Need citations in the parodies sections
Make your citation format consistent -- preferably with all footnotes -- instead of the dual methods that are being used now.
Please use the proper citation format, including the name of the author, publisher name, and publication date.
Remove any red internal links
The lead is not very informative; I had to read the article to actually understand what you meant. How about something more like:
Numa Numa (or "the Numa Numa Dance") is an Internet phenomenon in which amateurs create their own music videos singing the song "Dragostea din tei" by Moldovan pop band O-Zone. The phrase "Numa Numa" comes from the chorus of the song, "nu mă, nu mă iei," meaning, roughly, "don't want don't want to take me."
The original, and most famous, version was created and posted by Gary Brolsma. His video was ranked 28th in the 100 Greatest Funny Moments, broadcast by Channel 4 in the UK.
when you say "brought the Numa Numa phenomenon to the US" do you mean that it was already a phenomenon somewhere else? If so, where and what is the history? If not, change the wording.
I would start the main article with a little bit of background about the song. When and where was it originally recorded? Where has it been released or used? How would people have heard of it before this phenomena? What is the song primarily about and is there anything interesting about the lyrics? How long is it, and in what language was it sung?
What about Brolsma's video was so exciting? Can you find and cite a description of what he did in the video?
"viral video" is jargon -- can you explain what it is or link to a page which explains the term?
Explain more about the New Numa Contest. Who is hosting/sponsoring the contest? How are the winners chosen? Have many people entered? If so, how do their entries differ from Brolsma's?
Since you have an external links section, do not include external links in the main body of the article.
The parodies section reads more like a compressed list. Provide details (and sources) for a few of the most notable parodies, and trim the total list. How do these parodies differ from the entries in the New Numa contest (or is there a difference at all)?
In general, the article needs to be rewritten using the assumption that people reading it have never heard of it before. If you can provide more explanation and details, the article won't seem quite as rushed, and will read a lot better. Good luck! Karanacs15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Article definitely needs a thorough cleanup and rewrite now, even though events are still in the works. I have neither the time (anymore), nor the English writing skills which I feel are needed, to do this job properly.
Peer should be a native English/American writer, having insight/interest in showbizz, the criminal mind, confidence crime and defamation law matters. Thanks --SooperJoo17:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As one of two main authors of this article I humbly agree that it is very far from FA. To start with, it has little inline refs. But GA perhaps? I think it is within reach. --Irpen20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has had major additions in the past few weeks and has attracted more attention from the Misplaced Pages community due to the announcement of a new season and a new channel in which the show is to be screnned. I know that references is one of the key points that needs to be improved and maybe some episode tables with pictures. Basicly I am asking for pointers for how to make this article a Good Article. Because this article is apart of WikiProject Australian Television, there is editors with an interest in the article to improve it. Thanks. --Lakeyboy07:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article - each big section in the article should be represented in a sentence or paragraph in the lead. "with Kim frequently occupying the house due to her rocky relationship with Brett (all of which is of Kim's own doing due to Kim's own snobbish and childish behaviour towards Brett as well as punishing Brett for perceived wrongs by leaving him to stay at Kath's place or giving Brett the cold shoulder)," this sounds too colloquial and possibly POV. If you want to get GA, you'll need more references, especially in the section that "sounds like a review". -Malkinann22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You could also make a "Reception" section where you talk about reviews, ratings, and how Kath & Kim has seeped into the real world. All of this would have to be clearly cited, mind you. -Malkinann03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The article introduction has now been re-written and I just want to get an update on if it better fits the GA requirements for an introduction. Does it meet the requirements or what else needs to be included to / excluded from the introduction. Thanks. --Lakeyboy04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit running-on in places, and I'm not sure if Fountain Gate needs to be there. In the whole article, you need to italicise instances of the series name, and decide whether the name's Kath and Kim or Kath & Kim. In the Cast section, I'd honestly suggest that you spin it off into a List of Kath & Kim characters, and have only Kath, Kim, Sharon, Kel, Brett and Epps on the main page. You could replace the big list of celebs with "Many Australian celebrities and comedians have had bit parts on Kath and Kim. (See List of Kath & Kim characters)". -Malkinann06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into this article, especially since it was just recently rewritten (in late February). Here are a few suggestions that I think might help this article get to a GA, but I would recommend a second peer review before going to FAC.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Link directly to Nobel Prize in Economics, also the descriptions of the prizes are full of jargon and buzz words, the section seems like filler, I would just take it out except for the last sentence, which shows that that the school still produces Nobel prize winners.
Missing a lot of needed wikilinks: “MBA”, “Pittsburgh”, semester, Master of Science, Ph.D, Pirate games, whitewater rafting, resume, …
Some jargon: “flex-time”, capstone course, derivative trading, stipend, best practices, … etc…
“At the time of its creation, MBAs were perceived to have too little math skills, while the Ph.Ds traditionally hired as quantitative analysts were deemed to have too little experience in finance.” - Who thinks this?
“…in one (or more) of the remaining functional areas of business”. Remaining from what? What is a functional area?
Student life - this section reads like a school recruitment brochure. How about including some statistical data on the students who attend (gender, race, age), especially because the text later states that it is the #9 Top School - For Recruiting Minorities. Image:DodgeCMU.jpg feels like fluff. “irreverent”, weekly student newspaper - this is POV. Also this article fails to mention anything about the cost of attending the school, this information seems really important.
Career development needs an introduction that sets up and leads into the graphs. “Top-employers” is vague, what do you mean by “Top”.
“Research Centers”- I don’t know if it is strictly forbidden but I don’t usually see footnotes in section headings.
Rankings: Requires non school-sponsored citations for all rankings listed. “Average MBA GMAT Score Progression from 1998”- I find these graphs highly misleading, to mean anything they would have to include the average GMAT score around the country, as all scores may very well have gone up by a similar margin. The Y-axis is very small, and the numbers are difficult to read. Same situation with: Average MBA Salary Progression from 1998, needs a comparison to other MBA grads around the country.--DO11.1003:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on this page! Its nice to get a second set of eyes on it, and I think you gave me some good ideas. Check back in a little while and you'll definately see some of your recommendations implemented. PadreNuestro05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have done a lot to this article and would like some feedback on how the article is coming along. Just some suggestions of how it could become a feature article. SpecialWindler06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have again reworked this article and have combined sections together. The last time this article was placed under peer review it received little attention. I hope to renominate it for FA status in the near future. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to include the same type of family background information that was in the Kylie Minogue article. At first I was left wondering whether they are even related. — RJH (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should cite this: "Singles "I Begin to Wonder" and "Don't Wanna Lose This Feeling" were also substantial successes on the U.S. dance charts."
"In February 2006, Minogue made headlines". "In September 2006, Minogue's cover". "In November 2006, Minogue" Be consistent: here you wikilink month and year; in other cases you don't. Per WP:MoS, we wikilink only year-date-month.
Maybe it would be better to merge "family" with "childhood and beginning". But again this may be my personal preference.
Apart from these minor things, it lloks to me ready for FAC. I do not judge the prose, because I am not a native English speaker, but again I don't see any serious prose deficiencies.--Yannismarou18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have fixed the date inconsistencies and added a reference for that one sentence. I merged parts of the family section with the childhood and beginning section. -- Underneath-it-All20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request that the article be peer reviewed to provide editors with areas for improvement. If it is possible a 'Quality Scale' rating would be greatly appreciated. Ixistant22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Much of the article does not have inline citation, although it does contain a list of references at the end. All claims should be cited within the article (see WP:Cite)
'year of the Battle of Arderyth(Airdrie). This was a battle between Rydderych The Bountiful' Slight repetition. 'This was fought between...'
The inline citation does not show up in the references section. I can only repeat comment 2 above by Underneath-it-All The article can never be much better that Start class without this.
The history of Airdrie between the Battle of Arderyth and AD 1162 is unclear, - or is it in fact simply unknown? This is hard to believe but if so, you could be more specific.
The public buildings section should come later not in the middle of the history. ' the Town House (now the town clock) in 1856.' What you mean is not clear until later. 'now known locally as the Town Clock'?
'Chonology' is a typo
'In those days travelling was lonely and dangerous.' Why lonely?
'Due to the fact it was "independent", as it had all the powers of a Royal Burgh.' Dodgy syntax
'but instead due to an influx of residents from the Highlands and predominantly Ireland.' Poor wording. 'instead due to an influx of residents, predominantly from Ireland but also the Highlands'? put links into this for Ireland and Scottish Highlands.
'An evolution of the rise in population and industry prompted for more accessible water supplies.' ?
'Until mid 1800s,' word missing
1920 onwards - you could say a bit more about the major companies in the earlier period e.g. Stewarts and Lloyds, Bairdmores etc. Airdrie Public Library, is repeated here for some reason. There are, or were various other public buildings of note e.g the Public Baths.
Future - without references and some explanation this just looks like daydreaming. Expand it or remove it.
The labour party's monopoly on Monklands does not mean you can omit mentioning the affiliations of its fine politicians e.g. Karen Whitefield.
You omit to mention the historic Catholic/Protestant rivalry in the area. The Temperance movement was strong once too.
Hi there - I have been recently working on this article in an effort to improve it from its pretty much stub-class status, and I would very much like to get it up to FA-class. As such, i'd appreciate any comments as to which sections could be expanded or condensed, a review of the article to finad any errors I have missed, and for the page to be assessed to see whether or not it is yet A-class. Currently i've managed to get it up to Good Article-class, and would like some fresh minds to look it over before I make the final push for featured. Thanks very much in advance. Colds7ream16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is really nice work! I'm confused by something, though. There are two source references given for the sentence that starts, "In all, the American astronauts would spend more than a thousand hours aboard Mir." But ... that doesn't look right. Shouldn't it be "more than a thousand days"? (American astronaut Shannon Lucid spent 179 days aboard Mir. 179 * 24 = 4,296 hours.)
Yes, it should - and it looks like someone's corrected that already! Colds7ream
Also, there seems to be quite a bit of Capitalization of Words in the article. For example the phrase, "next leap into Space, to the Moon, Mars and Beyond." But also, repeatedly, "Space Station." Wouldn't "Mir" or just "the station" work as well?
And then, maybe most importantly, as regards the discussion in the "Program background" section about the motiviations for the program: the section doesn't mention the idea that the U.S. participated in the program partly to keep the Mir program (and the larger Russian space program) funded and operated by a relatively friendly Russian government. This is only touched upon in the "Criticisms" section. But it isn't a criticism; it's basic political science. Some people have asserted it was the primary motivation for the program. Of course some assert it continues to be the primary motivation for "Phase 2" as well.... Sdsds01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Right - thanks for pointing those out. I'll work on some decapitalisation and reworking of the background section when I get back from work this afternoon - thanks very much for reading it through! :-) Colds7ream07:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a 'political aims' paragraph to the background - if you think it needs expanding, please keep the comments coming! Colds7ream18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Program Background: Program Background → Background
Program Background: US president → American president
For all sections: For the citations, spaces aren't needed before and after: examples: - in orbit. → - in orbit. and (flying Mir expeditions LD-4 and EO-15). → (flying Mir expeditions LD-4 and EO-15).
Safety & Scientific Return: Align image to the right.
The reason I aligned it to the left was to continue the left-right-left-right image arrangement of the rest of the article - without wanting to sound rude, why do you think it'd look better on the right? Colds7ream
OK, everyone - thanks very much for the reviews of the article you carried out - I'm putting it forward as a Featured Article Candidate today, and hope that the things you spotted and the changes we made come to fruition in that. Thanks for all the help! Colds7ream09:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've extensively edited the article and developed it. I've followed generally all the guidelines indicated. Moreover, I have recently got in touch with the comic book's writer so I may actually get firsthand information (from his blog soon) that will further enhance the article. Please check and edit and develop, if necessary. I think it should be a featured article as it exemplifies a new stage and a whole new level in Indian comics. I guess only the themes section needs brushing up as it does not have references but I think the analysis is apt and is NOT original research. I'm merely reinstating what is mentioned in the comic books. Also, there's relatively no coverage on the net as of yet.Zuracech lordum00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Try to find out a infobox and lot of more references needed that is the first impression, i will later point out the defects later. Amartyabag07:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
OK, Thanks! The references have all been moved outside the ... and the web links are all cited...What happens now? ??? Fluffball7018:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article has some context and structure issues...
It was founded in response to an article in magazine "Twentieth Century". For such an important article (it founded the group) there is information missing here. What was the name of the article? Who wrote it, and when? What did it say?
In spite of how the Dilys Rowe article would be viewed in the present day, it prompted an interest in research into lesbian (and bisexual) lives. Okay, so the author is now known. But that should be attached to the last section. Also, how would the article be viewed today? Was it patronising, rude, sensationalist?
According to the Manual of Style, the into should summarise info expanded upon in the main body of text. However the first section jumps straight into the in the media section. In order to understand why the MRG was important I need to know some context, what was the social and legal status of lesbians in Britain around 1963? (Its implied later on that they had it rough, but it helps to discuss that at the begining). What impact did it have? I suggest a section on those sections, and more information about what I mention above. That would help me understand how this group came about better and why they were important.
Okay, I just noticed that the 1963ish article I was asking about is down at the bottom. That section should be moved up to explain the context of the group's formation. I also made some minor formatting changes per WP:MOS. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article pertains to one of the most imperialistic and prominent empires in Indian History. I have tried to do an exhaustive and balanced study on the contentious topic of "Origin of the Rashtrakutas" which is detailed in a subarticle attached to the main article. I believe the article is well cited and referenced and has undergone several rounds of copy edits. Please provide feedback or concerns about its content and format. Dineshkannambadi22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. We're trying to get this at least up to GA standard. Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Epbr12322:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Chubbles1212
Just a couple quick comments:
Lead should be expanded to two paragraphs. Done
Songs should be in double quotes, albums in italics. Done
There are a lot of redlinked songs; unless articles are planned for all of the songs mentioned, they should probably be delinked. Done
There's some ridiculous overlinking in general; does Kate Bush's pet cat need its own article? Done
That said, some things (names of other artists, other bands' albums and songs, and so on) are underlinked. Done
The topmost image has been proposed for deletion (not by me). Done
Note 34 has been provided to support the statement "Bush tackled sensitive and taboo subjects long before it became fashionable to do so". The citation is from NME, which is known for its hyperbole, and I believe this is an instance of such exaggeration. It's been fashionable since (at least) the 1960s to talk about sensitive subjects in rock and avant garde music. Done
I keep finding little spots of bad copyediting - extra brackets where they don't belong, improper spacing, unclosed parentheses, etc. The grammar/punctuation/spelling/wikilinking should be spotless. Done
I would neutralize the POV in the "Musical Style" section, and expand it. There's a lot more that could and should be said there. Done
There's more POV in other sections - "Bush's technical mastery is shown to full effect" in 1983-87 is another instance. Done
Maybe have a look at WP:LEAD, as the lead section is a bit long right now. The information in it looks relevent enough, but some of it could definitely be moved down into the body of the article.
It's a unique nickname. There should be a mention of its origin (Chris Berman). If I were a reader coming in out of the blue, not already familiar with the topic, I'd have no idea how that name even makes any sense.
The whole of the article seems to be the results of the offense and then individual player profiles of some of its stars. But, for an article that is ostensibly about that offense, there's not much about the offense itself. The opening tells us it was based upon Air Coryell (an offense I wouldn't exactly describe as "traditional", by the way), but that's pretty much it. What is the background of the Coryell offense that's the basis? What changes were made to that? How was it different not only from Coryell's, but from the other NFL offenses in use between 1999 and 2001? What were the offenses schemes and designs?
For the individual players, I'd use the main article template, rather than the details template.
This article has been developed by many editors. I am requesting if there should be anything wrong in this article and if it qualifies as a FA article. thanks Good friend10018:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
References come after puncuation, . should be .
Move, merge, expand the one sentence paragraphs, this will make people object per criteria 1a. of FA criteria, "well-written"
The See Also section comes before the references sections
Remove the redlinked article under "See Also" - the point of the section is to link to articles that exist.
Expand the lead to two paragraphs, per WP:LEAD. You can split the info from the first paragraph add a bit etc
Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 meters, use 100 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 meters.
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
The external links to Thucydides' works were inaccessible to me. You might consider switching them to Wikisource links. Danny07:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
expand/edit the lead so that it is a summary of the article
check that Marie zu Erbach-Schönberg was titled Countess (Gräfin) (after her husband) rather than Princess (Fürstin) (after her higher birth title)
stub Marie zu Erbach-Schönberg (or remove the red-link), ditto for Stylianos Gonatas
check that "their wedding was one of the last great gatherings of the descendants of Queen Victoria and Christian IX of Denmark before World War I." WWI was 10 years later, what about the 1905 Spanish or 1913 Berlin weddings or the funerals of Edward VII of the United Kingdom or George I of Greece?
cite "she was typically referred to as Princess Aliki"
explain the relationship between Rachel and Haimaki Cohen
The article is somewhat short, but its content is quite comprehensive. Any suggestions towards improving the article? Deucalionite16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how much this helps, but one thing that struck me as confusing is that the opening sentence describes this war as "the only major military expedition of the Rus' Khaganate recorded in Byzantine and Western European sources" -- yet when recounting the history of this war (if a raid upon Constantinople & the neighboring area could be described as a "war"), only the Byzantine sources are used. The Western European sources aren't mentioned until the section "Later traditions". Either the sentence or the account of the war needs to be re-written. BTW, I'm not sure "Criticism" is the best choice for the title of that section. -- llywrch21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is good since it contains well-edited content, as well as reliable sources. However, any other suggestions towards improving the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks quite nice, overall. A few minor issues, though:
First-level headings are not permitted in articles; all the headings need to be shifted down a level.
"Inline citations" can be simplified to "Citations"
Quotes should not be italicized (indeed, the article overuses italics in general), and longer ones should use blockquote formatting.
The article contains good content, sources, and pictures. Yet, the article deserves to be peer-reviewed in order to further enhance its overall quality. Any suggestions? Deucalionite16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the article contains good content, sources, and pictures. Recommendations towards improving the article further would be more than appreciated. Deucalionite16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is stable, contains good information, but requires more sources in order to further validate its content. Any suggestions towards improving the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that there shouldn't be any referencing in the lead, as the lead should be summarising the information contained within the article. There shouldn't be any info in the lead that hasn't been introduced (and referenced) within the body of the article.
There are large sections of the article without any referencing.
Make sure all the references are consistent in format - WP:CITET might be helpful.
In fact, some of the sections of this article are more detailed than the main articles they're summarising - like Decline of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe some of the information on that can be shifted across to the main article?
There are some very useful suggestions in the automated peer review, here. It also might be useful to look at the reasons why the article was delisted, here.
The article is superb content-wise and in terms of sources. However, I would greatly appreciate any input towards improving the article further. Deucalionite15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is good content-wise and in terms of references. However, other suggestions towards improving the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This could use some information about the symbolic use of Apollo after the worship had ended and before the twentieth century. As it is, we jump from the cult to the Apollo space program. Goldfritha02:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The article seems short, though the quality of its content is worthy of anyone's attention. Any suggestions towards augmenting the quality of the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a bit on the background and the aftermath
Overall, I find its size just fine, but then again, I contributed most of its material (along with several contributors), therefore, I am not impartial.
Article needs in-line citations on all sections. Moreover, the article needs references for the section entitled "Other." Further refining of the text and any other improvements to the article are recommended. Deucalionite15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Article needs more in-line citations on all sections. Sections such as "The Perseids" and "Other connections" need more citations. Moreover, a few more references would be helpful in expanding the overall content of the article. Other suggestions towards improving the article are recommended. Deucalionite15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the article is good in terms of content and citations. However, any other refinements to the article are welcome. Deucalionite15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Very subjective words like "wondrous," and "tyrant," should be in quotations.
The prose is a little choppy, for example, the use of colons, semi-colons, and hyphens. These should be used sparingly.
Try not to have one sentence paragraphs.
Put an inline citation at the end of every paragraph so that there's no "dangling," uncited text.
Background, third paragraph: I'm not really sure who "they" refers to.
I don't think you necessarily have to mention what each historian said in the text all the time, if you specify the source historian in the footnote. For example, "According to Herodotus, the fleet sent by Darius consisted of 600 triremes, whereas, according to Cornelius Nepos, there were only 500." I would say, "Darius sent a fleet of 500-600 triremes." Then, in the footnote I would say, "Herodotus specifies 600 and Cornelius Nepos 500 triremes." This way the narrative flows without the reader being distracted by which historian said what. If you do this the "Size of opposing forces" section can be greatly reduced or even incorporated into the "background" or "campaign" section. Or you could rename it as a "Prelude" section which is what I do for that type of section in the battle articles I edit. With all the "this historian said this, but this other historian says this," the story becomes a little difficult to follow.
Since it's the English Misplaced Pages, I'd probably put the quote only in English in the text and put the original Greek or other language in the footnote.
All in all I think the article contains excellent information, is well laid-out, has excellent images to support the text, and is definitely deserving of its current, A-class status. Nice work. Cla6800:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the article is good in terms of content, pictures, and references/citations. Any other improvements to the article are more than welcome. Deucalionite15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
About the review - Rewriting on the way
I am at this moment (and during the last two weeks) further improving the article (building on the initial excellent work by Pericles*) by proof-reading the article, doing the necessary formatting and rewriting some of its parts. I also use some of my own books to further enrich the article. I intended after the end of my effor to ask for a peer-review by the WP:MILHIST. Any suggestion is of course helpful, and I will take it into consideration, but I believe that the reviewers would have a better image of the article after my partial rewriting is over. Right now I have worked until section 3 ("Allied troop dispositions prior to the German invasion").
Something worrying me is the copyright status of some of the pictures and of the maps. I do not think it is very solit. I have asked the aid of the Wikiproject Maps, but I have no response until now. I have also asked for help from the creator of the maps in the French article. He has done an excellent work there, and he has said that he will try to translate them in English.--Yannismarou15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see more pictures of the college, as well as an expanded history section and parts of campus life improved. Grammer and article flow also needs to be improved.Hochstetler5103:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The Goshen College entry has had some changes this year - they changed it to an advertisment.
Have a look over at WP:MEDMOS for guidelines (Note: we are currently in the process of resurrecting discussion on those guidelines, please contribute on the talk page). In particular, the top level headings will give you suggestions as to topics to discuss, how to structure the article and what order might be best.
Symptoms should be first. Beginning the article with a discussion on a historical and fairly academic classification change doesn't really inspire the general reader. The lead needs to be expanded and encourage the reader. How common is this, is it serious?
Talking of which, the article's audience needs reworked. It is clearly aimed at advising other health professionals – the use of "diagnostic workup", "are recommended" and "should" are a give-away. Changing the article for the general reader will not be easy for such a complex subject. Currently it is too technical. Whilst some technical paragraphs are OK, there should still be others (particularly at the start of sections) where a general reader can cope without consulting a medical dictionary.
The article is currently imbalanced with too much on the various causes. It might help to restrict the content to just the common causes. The reader isn't helped by being overloaded with obscure stuff that only interests the writers of House. The Ocular origin section is weak. For example, how, exactly, does myopia cause this?
There are lots of bullet-point list, which are OK for an initial brain-dump but you need to expand these to flowing prose.
Hello peers! Looking for some heads-up on how to improve the article and perhaps get it upgraded to 'A' Quality and perhaps (dare we dream) obtain a GA rating. Comments on what you think the article has too much of, or needs more of would be nifty. Arcayne17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Suggestions are below:
Rewrite Production into useful prose and support with citation. Origin of the project would be good as well, like why Gibson chose to pursue this particular time in history. Move Wikiquote template to External links section.
(Addressed) Purge Theme section unless you can find citation to back the claims made; the section also has weasel wording like "most notably" -- according to whom?
(Addressed) Re-format table in Cast section as a normal "Actor as Character" list. Brief descriptions of the characters and any encyclopedic information about the actors being cast would be nice.
Rewrite Response and awards section as prose. Also, are there any other notable awards that Braveheart won? Check out the Awards section on the film's IMDb page. Stuff like Golden Globes could be added; a possible rule of thumb is that if an award has its own Misplaced Pages article, it may be acceptable. Other criteria should apply, though. As for box office performance, more detail could be provided -- its premiere, anything unique about its opening, how it performed overseas, especially in the countries that are portrayed in the films.
Cultural effects section needs to be cited. There's an embedded link for what Lin Anderson said about the film shaping the political landscape; does the link have any information about how it was shaped?
Historical inaccuracy -- give it the 300 treatment and avoid synthesis. Find references of historians criticizing Braveheart directly.
(Addressed) Trivia -- purge it. It's trivial, after all.
Spoofs and references... equates Trivia, in my opinion. Might be better replaced by useful prose about the impact of Braveheart on certain aspects of popular culture.
Soundtrack and More Music from Braveheart -- I'd suggest a content fork, and if the music was a major part of the film, you could be redundant in having information about the music both at the film article and the newly-created soundtrack article, but only have the track listing at the latter.
(Addressed) External links -- there's two film reviews. I suggest making "Critical reaction" and "Historical inaccuracy" subsections under "Response and awards" (re-title the section as "Reaction" or "Reception"). Focus "Critical reaction" on the merits of directing, acting, editing, effects, violence, etc. Focus "Historical inaccuracy" on differences from the actual events, but keep it succinct. Not sure how far this film strays from the actual event compared to 300.
Expand lead paragraphs after all above points have been addressed.
Resorted sections so that under new Reception Section are the sections Box Office, Awards, Cultural Effects and Wallace Monument. Historical Accuracy is still its own section. Arcayne16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Cast Section set to prose, removing table w/brief description of character and notable encyclopedic info about the cast where applicable. Using FA article as template. Arcayne18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Expanded Spoofs and Cultural References by adding image of South Park's Chef in parody of Braveheart. I still have to address converting the bullet points into prose. Arcayne19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think the actual tracks are really necessary to list? I mean, a content fork will only list the tracks, leaving it pretty much an empty article. Making note of the greater amount of dialogue in the follow-up album seems to be enough to me. Thoughts? Arcayne18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
References other than the Technique itself would seem absolutely necessary, just to prove notability if nothing else. They will also give you a hint how much space to devote to each subtopic.
The first ref, just to http://nique.net/ is dangerous - what if they change their "liveliest newspaper" line to something else? I'd link to a specific issue, ideally the first time that was used. Clearly the 1911 issue didn't have it. Done
Cite the "citation needed"s Done
The Section titles probably don't need wikilinks; for example the Opinion article doesn't really describe the newspaper's Opinions section Done
There aren't many mentions of the Technique outside of Georgia Tech and college newspaper-related pages. There was a recent bit of news when the 'Nique decided to not publish a fringe group's inflammatory advertisement, but it wouldn't be news if Frontpage Mag.com didn't have an agenda to push.
The online archives only go back to 1995, and there aren't any resources (other than offline archives) that have the answer to that; so, I just said that they did it since at least 1995 (for now). I might have a look in the archives to figure that one out.
I happened upon a better-quality copy of the first issue of the Technique today, something I'd been looking for since I started editing this article. So, I've nailed one of them. However, the sources I have that mention the merger incorrectly cite the newspapers that merge as the Yellow Jacket and the Technique; That's not possible, because (from what I've learned) the campus newspaper at the time was The Georgia Tech, and the Yellow Jacket was sort of a humor magazine. So, I'm not sure I'll be able to fill that ref until I do some deeper digging.
Removed the wikilinks on the section titles. That one was fun and easy :)
Removed "possibly," sounds 100x less WEASEL-ish.
As for "common lore states," Well, it's cited in a few places that ANAK founded the Technique, but it's not very verifiable at the moment. Before 1967, ANAK wasn't a secret society, so there might be some resources that confirm or deny this. Also, now that I have that first issue, I'll be able to cross-reference the editor list with the publicly available ANAK member list and give some credence to the claim.
See above with the bit about the ad that was denied. While it happened, I'm not sure the event was encyclopedic, given the consistent POV-pushing of those organizations. Unfortunately, not much else is known about the Technique's history than what's on the article right now. I wish it was otherwise.
After further research, I discovered a past controversy and wrote it up into the article. Given the paper's long history, I'm sure there are more. That's just the one that I've found. —Disavian (/contribs) 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This article on Mary Wollstonecraft's only piece of children's literature has recently achieved GA and I would like it to reach FA. Any suggestions along this line would be much appreciated. Awadewit15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Review by Kaldari
Only had a chance to scan through the first two sections. Other than a couple punctuation changes, the only thing I noticed that needs editing is one sentence is somewhat difficult to read: "Wollstonecraft continued writing on educational issues in her most famous work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), which was written in response to Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord’s proposal for a national system of education in France based on the assumption that women only needed a domestic education and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile: Or, On Education which claimed that women were irrational and could not be taught to reason." Can we break this into two or three sentences? Kaldari23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some aspects of the lead that are a bit awkward - eg, the first two sentences contain semicolons, and it's the second instead of the first instance of children's literature that's linked. What stands out more, though, is that there's introductorym material about Wollstonecraft's intentions and social messages in the book, but no single-sentence plot summary - we know what the book was meant to do but not what it's about.
I've been working on the lead. I'm not sure that a single-sentence plot summary is appropriate (see below), but I'll see what I can do. Awadewit05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, the historical background section is quite long to be the first section of the article, before any discussion of the book itself - especially considering that the article isn't really very long overall. It breaks things up a bit, but maybe just put a bit of the history in the lead, and put the rest after the section on the plot. The plot section itself could use a bit of expansion; it's very brief and nonspecific. There's more in the later sections, but there are unanswered basic questions about how Mary and Caroline came to be taught this way, what the setting is, the sort of stuff you'd put in the plot section of a modern work of fiction.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to write a plot summary of this text because there is no real plot; it is not structured like a modern work of fiction (in fact callling it fiction is problematic). The Mary and Caroline story basically serves as a thread narrative - we learn next to nothing about them and they are essentially irrelevant to the purpose of the work; the bulk of the text consists of Mrs. Mason's stories and the group's visits to other people who also tell them stories. I will revise to try to get this across. It is not a story with a single narrative arc - it is a series of didactic tales. Awadewit05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to mention Mitzi Myers by name in the text, some aside about her eminence as a scholar would be useful. Does she need her own article?
I don't know if she deserves her own article or not. She did not live long enough to publish a book (she died tragically), but her articles transformed the study of eighteenth-century children's literature. Awadewit05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the same discussion - Myers' articles demonstrate that women writers of children's literature had a particular purpose? "Demonstrate" seems too strong here, or at least misplaced; I'd associate it more with empirical results.
It's common language in literary studies but I have changed it since other readers will have different connotations associated with the word. Awadewit06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Aesthetic of the sublime" - wikilink goes to a disambig page; I assume you meant sublime (philosophy).
There's a quote from a "Kelly" in the pedagogical theory section; he's mentioned much earlier, but I'd since forgotten the name. He should be re-introduced here.
' fairy tales and other popular tales that they associated with the rich and the poor, respectively.' - not clear what the 'respectively' goes to here, since 'other popular tales' is so general.
To me, the illustration interpretations read like the usual just-so stories. A large hat means Mrs. Mason is an oppressive influence? If there's no more context to give, I suppose there's nothing more to be said, but I suspect many people will read these interpretations and think no further than 'pfft, that's dumb'. Opabinia regalis05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've included a good part of Mitchell's analysis now. Perhaps you will see why I left out some parts of it in the first place. Let me know what you think. Also, please don't ask me to summarize the quote. Blake scholarship is impossible (as is Blake)! Awadewit06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I might add, clearly not everyone agrees on the large hat being oppressive, so it is not a "dumb" interpretation. What do you think? Does the large hat represent oppressiveness? Why or why not? Can you give reasons? Are they historically specific? That is the essence of good scholarship in the humanities, in my opinion - you can really back up what you are saying with evidence from your primary source and you can put that evidence in historical context. By the way, these interpretations of the print are actually pretty good because they focus on details from the print itself as well as eighteenth-century artistic traditions (one Blakean, one a larger artistic movement). Unfortunately, this does not always happen - there is no real "evidence" presented for the critic's interpretation from the work. Here we have evidence that the reader can weigh - does the large hat look oppressive? Do the girls' hats look like halos? If they do, what does that mean? Is Mrs. Mason's stance suffocating the girls or embracing them? Both critics have good reasons for their interpretations beyond "I just think so." Just trying to defend the humanities a bit. :) Awadewit06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is another excellent article by Awadewit, and a really useful contribution to Misplaced Pages, which, thanks to her, is developing an informative and reliable niche on eighteenth-century proto-feminist writers and eighteenth-century educational theory. I would certainly vote “support” at an FAC. I found the article extremely interesting; for once, one of Awadewit’s subjects overlaps slightly with some of my areas of interest, which include the history of Cornish folklore and eighteenth-century art.
I’ve made a note of a number of small points; but, first, two main points which occurred to me after I read the article for the first time:
The first concerns the description of the narrative, which I felt lacked in vividness and specificity. As a reader, I could have done with a short quotation or two, illustrating the tone of the dialogue between Mrs Mason and the girls. Also, I suggest that the article might benefit from a sentence or two summarising a few—say, three—of the exemplary tales, to give a flavour. I had to scout round the internet to gain an idea of the sort of thing: for example, there turns out to be one about a robin who tries to take over the nest and insists on being the first fed because he is the oldest. We have tantalising fragments of information about Townley, Trueman, and Fretful, but they are too insubstantial to chew upon, in my opinion.
That story comes from Sarah Trimmer'sFabulous Histories (another article I'm working on). I can expand the description of the text - I just wanted to make sure that the article didn't become a long plot summary. Also, I was worried about original research. When does a plot summary become interpretation? It is a thin line. Awadewit21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that gives the reader some necessary assistance now in imagining the style of the book. You've probably overdone it, for the moment, but this is work in progress, and the right length for such summaries will gradually emerge. FAs tend to keep them quite, but not too, short. I had this problem when working on Chekhov, who wrote all those short stories. In the end I opted for a few brief summaries here and there, as you find in any article on him; but it felt unsatisfactory.
The issue you raise about original research is one that fascinates me. Misplaced Pages is very contradictory on writing about fiction, but I think it leaves scope to summarise fiction so long as one does it accurately and references an edition of the work as a source. One quotes the story as a reference to itself, in effect, which I think keeps to the spirit of those passages in policy pages which allow self-reference so long it is balanced by other material. Writing summaries is exceptionally difficult, though, isn't it? Especially where, as with Chekhov, the stories aren't self-explanatory.
Yes, it is a very thin line. But there's a thin line in almost any text we word ourselves. We can't just copy from the sources and so we have to find our own words. But what if the source was perfectly written, using les mots justes? We introduce slightly different meanings by using our own words. On the other hand, quite a few books are badly written, so it is often possible to improve on their phrasing (a somewhat arrogant claim there). qp10qp13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, just the act of summarizing a body of scholarship into an article is in its own way original research. Since another editor or another set of editors would have summarized differently (included different material, emphasized different material), there is no way to achieve the mythical WP:NPOV. Awadewit16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
My second main point relates to the article’s comments on Rousseau. (Before I proceed, let me make clear that I have no time for Rousseau’s view of women whatsoever .) I feel that the article does his views on women a disservice by presenting them too crudely. It seems to me that Rousseau constructs an antithetical argument about the qualities of males and females: men are this, but women are that; men have what women lack; women have what men lack, bla bla bla.
Let me refer to the following two statements:
She also directly challenged Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile, which claimed that women were irrational and could not be taught to reason.
Rousseau argued in Emile that women were naturally cunning and manipulative; moreover, he felt that these traits should be encouraged in young girls and that women were incapable of reason and rationality.
It’s a while since I read Emile, and I cannot be sure he never put it like that; but even if he did, we must at least lay out his full argument. I would say that he suggests overall that women’s reason is different to men’s reason, not that they are incapable of reason at all; he sees men as equipped with the ability to reason theoretically, for instance for science, and women as equipped to reason practically, possessing a superior talent in that regard. In his view, this is a clever arrangement on the part of nature, which will keep the world in order if we only attend to it.
I can expand Rousseau's arguments, but since this article is primarily about Wollstonecraft and Original Stories, I tried to keep the Rousseau explication short. Rousseau is a difficult and contradictory writer, but I do not feel that I have represented him unfairly inaccurately (see quotations below). Awadewit21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The second extract above cries out for the explanatory, complementary part of the equation, if only because the average reader would surely be brought up short by the idea that Rousseau believed women were not only naturally cunning and manipulative but that they should even be encouraged to be so. How come? Well, a fair summary of his argument might be that he believed that, despite their weakness, women can achieve power over men by the use of their special arts, and that this is actually a good thing, since it will keep men in check and stop them doing too much damage; by this system, he believes, the relationship between men and women can be kept in balance and everyone will be happy
I suspect that Rousseau’s argument has slipped to a cruder formulation after being refracted, for present purposes, first through Wollstonecraft, then via Wollstonecraft through feminist scholarship on Wollstonecraft, and finally by this article's choice of words. It would be perfectly all right, in my opinion, to say that Wollstonecraft wrote these works against her conception of what Rousseau said, or that scholars have characterised Rousseau’s views as such and such. But it seems to me inaccurate to summarise his views in this context without acknowledging the point of view from which they are summarised (at the very least quote him in the note).
Although I haven’t read Wollstonecraft’s Vindication, I did spend some time yesterday trying to check what she said in it on this matter. She certainly objects to the idea that women should be required to rule men rather than themselves and be obliged to use deceptive arts to do so. She is entitled to distil that message from his theories and expose its implications and limitations. But Wollstonecraft, as far as I can see, doesn’t characterise Rousseau’s views in the same crude terms we use in the article, which reports him as believing merely that women were irrational, cunning (a contradiction there, surely), manipulative, and silly.
Wollstonecraft dedicates a large portion of the fifth chapter of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman to attacks on both Emile and Rousseau personally. You might check that out. She gets pretty vicious.
Here are some quotations from Emile that might illuminate the situation.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile, or On Education. Trans. Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1979.
“In what they have in common, they are equal. Where they differ, they are not comparable. A perfect woman and a perfect man ought not to resemble each other in mind any more than in looks, and perfection is not susceptible of more or less. In the union of the sexes each contributes equally to the common aim, but not in the same way. From this diversity arises the first assignable difference in the moral relations of the two sexes. One ought to be active and strong, the other passive and weak. One must necessarily will and be able; it suffices that the other put up little resistance. Once this principle is established, it follows that woman is made specially to please man.” (358) Rousseau never makes clear in Emile what men and women have "in common."
“Woman and man are made for one another, but their mutual dependence is not equal. Men depend on women because of their desires; women depend on men because of both their desires and their needs. We would survive more easily without them than they would without us.” (364)
“Men’s morals, their passions, their tastes, their pleasures, their very happiness also depend on women. Thus the whole education of women ought to relate to men. To please men, to be useful to them, to make herself loved and honored by them, to raise them when young, to care for them when grown, to counsel them, to console them, to make their lives agreeable and sweet—these are the duties of women at all times, and they ought to be taught from childhood.” (365)
“Since the body is born, so to speak, before the soul, the body ought to be cultivated first. This order is common to the two sexes, but the aim of this cultivation is different. For man this aim is the development of strength; for woman it is the development of attractiveness.” (365)
“Guile is a natural talent with the fair sex, and since I am persuaded that all the natural inclinations are good and right in themselves, I am of the opinion that this one should be cultivated like the others. The only issue is preventing its abuse. . . . This peculiar cleverness given to the fair sex is a very equitable compensation for their lesser share of strength, a compensation without which women would be not man’s companion but his slave. It is by means of this superiority in talent that she keeps herself his equal and that she governs him while obeying him. . . . She has in her favor only her art and her beauty.” (370-1)
“I would want a young Englishwoman to cultivate pleasing talents that will entertain her future husband with as much care as young Albanian cultivates them for the harem of Ispaham.” (374)
“Why do you consult their mouth when it is not the mouth which ought to speak? Consult their eyes, their color, their breathing, their fearful manner, their soft resistance. This is the language nature gives them for answering you. The mouth always says no and ought to say no. But the accent it adds to this answer is not always the same, and this accent does not know how to lie.” (385)
“Readers, I leave it to you. Answer in good faith. What gives you a better opinion of a woman on entering her room, what makes you approach her with more respect—to see her occupied with the labors of her sex and the cares of her household, encompassed by her children’s things, or to find her at her dressing table writing verses, surrounded by all sorts of pamphlets and letters written on tinted paper?” (409)
As you can see, although some of Rousseau's statements contain the argument you referred to (men have one set of talents and women have the complementary set), those statements also end with a narrowing of the possibilities for women. Moreover, other statements in Book V make his opinions regarding women even clearer. Awadewit21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I must say that I do still feel some adjustment or balancing is necessary. If the article is going to say that Rousseau believed women are manipulative, we should add a balancing sentence or note explaining what he meant by that (the one beginning with "guile" would do well for the latter, since it explains the paradoxical point by showing that Rousseau believed "guile" was a good thing.). It appears that he is not translated as using the words "cunning" or "irrational": those very damning terms should either be replaced by something from his work or balanced by a statement, however absurd, of his on the value of women or their talents. I'd be interested to know what the French word translated as "guile" is, because "cunning" has a damning connotation in English, whereas Rousseau here seems to approve of the characteristic.
I think that confirms for me the feeling I have that though Rousseau belittled women, he didn't hate them. For that one has to go to Stendhal. qp10qp14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You should read Rousseau's Confessions; his attitude towards his various lovers is fascinating. There is a lot of other great stuff, too - a fun read. There is this intriguing passage about how he decided whether or not he was saved - he threw a stick or a rock at a tree. If it hit the tree, he was saved, if it didn't, he wasn't. I won't spoil the ending. Awadewit16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The quotations above give women (and any wise man) very good reason to be angry, of course, since he declares them inferior and designed to please men; I was sure of that already. But he doesn't say that they can't reason at all. qp10qp22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Alan Richardson appears to have found some later editions of the text; he claims that Original Stories was published until 1835
I wonder if this has been updated now. I notice that he states this as a fact rather than a claim in his essay in The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft, which must have been approved by the editors. Also, it seems he is not the only one to claim (or state) the same, or maybe even the first: I found this exceptionally infuriating page: try to read that cut-off line at the bottom of the snippet.
I thought that sentence might cause problems. A tiny secret. Editors often don't check on that sort of thing. They would just assume that Richardson was right. Unfortunately, I have never seen an edition after 1818 or 1820 or even a reference to one (I am writing one of my dissertation chapters on this text). Looking at the talk page, you will notice that when I first started really getting into wikipedia, I was trying to fix the date problem on this page. The National Union Catalogue only has listings up until around 1818. Another editor found a listing for 1835 in another database, but it was an approximate date inserted by a librarian (on what basis we have no idea). I do not know how Richardson came up with that date. The reason I put "claim" in the article is because there is no other evidence to support his statement - no books, no records, nothing. I can't really read the link you sent me to. Is it saying there were Dublin editions in 1835 or 1825 (I can't actually read the date)? Where are they getting that information from, I wonder. I would actually really like to know for my own work as well as for the article. My library has this whole set, so I suppose I will have to trudge over there and look it up. It looks like OS might be reprinted in there. Interesting. I didn't know that (I wonder why our online card catalogue didn't tell me about it!). If it is reprinted in the series, I will add it to my list of reprints. Awadewit23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It comes like this on the search page if you type in a phrase from the snippet: Not that a search page is reliable (Google Books often even spells authors' names wrong). But I am 80% sure that is a 3 and not a 2. qp10qp00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
But the whole question is where they are getting that date from. Like I said, I will go check out the book. Awadewit01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Quotations: I know you reverted me for adding a capital letter to "boy" in "The Little boy Found". I'm not familiar with the scholarly principle for quoting a book with this sort of error in it (by the way, I first checked with the 1794 facsimile, in case Blake had been having one of his calligraphical off-days). Forgive me for suspecting you of an untypical mistake, rather than the publisher; but are you content to let this stand? I'm not going to be the last to want to correct it.
I don't know how much you know about Blake, but all of his illuminated manuscripts are different and he did not follow "conventional" typography (which didn't really exist as we know it at that time, anyway, so its hard to call it a mistake). Capitalization "rules" were very unclear during the eighteenth century. Authors usually determined their own rules on that. I can do a little "The Little oy Found" if you think that is better, but, honestly, I don't see the necessity. All of the illuminated manuscripts I checked at the Blake Archive do indeed have the capital, but there may be some myserious Blakean reason that Mitchell wanted the lower-case letter. To me, this is not a clear-cut mistake because Blake's orthography and typography was just so eccentric. Awadewit01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of that quotation, it seems to me far too long and out of proportion to the importance of its contentious point. It's not one of Blake's best works, so I hardly think he would have put all the thought into it that this critic suggests, not that my opinion on that is relevant. If I was editing this, I'd keep a small quote, from "hats to child", maybe, and add a one-sentence paraphrase of the writer's overall interpretation in the note.
I used to have a much shorter version of the quotation (you can go back in the history to April 17 "revising per peer review" to see the changes), but other reviewers felt that it did not adequately explain Mitchell's interpretation (see above and my talk page). They felt it made Mitchell's interpretation look simplistic, so I decided to expand it out because that was not my intention. I'm afraid that if you want to dispute how much thought Blake put into his works, you will have to provide some sources on that! You said that you are interested in eighteenth-century art; surely you have seen arguments like this before? (Also, "not one of his best works"? Now we're starting to make value judgments? :) ) To talk about this section in larger terms, it is difficult to write it because so little has been published on the illustrations, but I did feel that it would be wrong to leave out the topic all together and I, of course, can't just insert my own ideas into the article. Awadewit01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm always happy to indulge in original research and opinions on talk pages. It affects my judgement about articles in omitting rather than adding. It's the same with you wondering where that website got its information from: you wouldn't just take it as read.
I don't know as much about Blake as I should, though I have spent some time looking at his manuscripts in dark rooms at the Tate. The truth is, I don't like his work very much. But I'm an obsessive Samuel Palmer nut, Palmer being one of Blake's acolytes, and have made pilgrimages to Oxford just to look at the drawings I fell in love with as a student. They keep them locked away now, and I have to badger the snooty curators to get them out of the drawers for me (I'm planning to steal one).
Only joking.
I've got a house full of art books, but let me tell you, there's hardly a decent page of scholarly criticism in any one of them. The standard is abysmal compared to that for literature or history. Mitchell's mistake is Mitchell's mistake, whether of accuracy or of judgement; if it's not a mistake, it's an act of stupidity. Eccentric though Blake is, the capitalization in Songs is standard on all the copies and in all the printed versions I've been able to check. Of course, it's conceivable there might be exceptions, but that still wouldn't justify the decision—if it is a decision and not a printing error. qp10qp03:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious, what books do you have? A lot of those coffee table books don't have any scholarship in them or very poor scholarship, but there is actually very good scholarship out there. I could send you a little bibliography on some topics that you are interested in, if you want. I was an English-Art history double major as an undergraduate, so I have a bunch of bibliographies lying around from all of my survey courses. Art history professors are very helpful that way. (I will change the Mitchell quote - who knows what happened with that. Maybe he'll come by and tell us!) Awadewit03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I should have made clear what I meant by "scholarly criticism", which was the value-judgement side of it, rather than the art history...the sort of wiffly theorising that we have here from Mitchell. Of course, there is magnificent scholarship otherwise. My prized possession is a huge book on Egon Schiele which contains reproductions of every last bit of his work, finished or unfinished (apart from one, discovered since), all annotated microscopically. I will use it to bring the Misplaced Pages article on him up to scratch one day. I have all types of books on art, from coffee table ones to ones with no pictures. I just find the prose in them very dreary on the whole, either pedestrian on the one hand or pretentious on the other. A particular victim is Paula Rego, one of my favourite artists, who has become a real pretentious-drivel magnet. My favourite eighteenth-century artist is Jean-Baptiste Chardin; I have a little Chardin at the top of my talk page. qp10qp14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
A lot of those books that contain all of the reproductions don't contain a lot of scholarship - you are right. It is best to go elsewhere for that. What do you mean by "pretentious"? Awadewit16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I was also not happy with a couple of things in the long quote by Gary Kelly:
The first part of the title indicates that the ‘stories’ are not merely fictitious but have a factual basis in domestic, quotidian life, though readers would understand ‘from real life’ to mean ‘based on’ or ‘adapted from real ‘life’, and not necessary ‘representation of actual events’.
I've read that over and over, and it seems to me that "necessary" should be "necessarily".
The phrase ‘real life’ strengths ‘original’ excluding both the artificial and the fictional or imaginary.
Religion is rather skirted round in the article. We could almost get the impression from this article, by omission, that Wollstonecraft's belief in reason had taken her beyond religion as well, but she thinks it a significant part of the book's moral apparatus: "The Almighty, who never afflicts but to produce some good end, first sends diseases to children to teach them patience and fortitude; and when by degrees they have learned to bear them, they have acquired some virtue". It makes me wonder if Wollstonecraft was as much influenced, though not so consciously, by the religious tradition of giving children a strict moral upbringing as she was by the growth of rational moralism (or that one was more a product of the other than it acknowledged, both taking against fairy tales, paganism, or whatever, in a rigid way). Your article on Barbauld showed me that the new style of children's literature was not without a religious dimension traceable back to Pilgrim's Progress, or whatever.
Yes, I know. You are right to notice that Wollstonecraft was highly influenced by the Pilgrim's Progress tradition; in the children's literature tradition, one can trace it back to James Janeway's Token for Children (1672) which is a collection of miniature spiritual biographies just like Jane Fretful's story in Original Stories (might Jane's name be a reference?). Unfortunately, nothing has been published on this. One of my dissertation chapters deals with this topic (and quotes just that passage from OS), but my dissertation is not yet completed (so I cannot quote it). I am currently writing an article based on that chapter and trying to get it published. If I do, I will add it to the article. Awadewit03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Another aspect of historical context that could be noted is the tradition of works concerning a governess, parent or tutor in dialogue with her charges. You mention conduct books without drawing that out. It appears Newbery had published the genre quite a lot.
Newbery published a lot (interestingly, he made his fortune off of some medicinal powder - it was quackery). Conduct books were published by everybody, though. Conduct books also don't all have this dialogic structure (I'm beginning to feel that I should write an article on conduct books - I have to explain them in every article I write); that is why I made of mention of Madame de Genlis's books which do have this same structure (a lot of children's books did). Unfortunately, again, there is no good study of this topic - just little references here and there, as far as I know. There really is very little written on eighteenth-century children's literture. It is a burgeoning field. Awadewit03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning the ages of the children, who are described merely as "young girls"? They could be five, they could be twelve. It makes a difference, since both Locke and Rousseau seemed to have had fixed ideas about when children become rational beings.
The note mentions that Wollstonecraft had worked as a governess of two girls with the same names: to me that sounds a significant enough detail to deserve mention in the article proper.
I'm not sure it really fits there as I have structed the "Historical context" as a history of Wollstonecraft's writing career. Awadewit16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The article emphasizes experiental learning over precepts, but it sounds, as far as I can gather, as if Mrs Mason was using experiences as an excuse to rattle off precepts. "Adieu! When you think of your friend, observe her precepts." Was she not using a combination of the two?
Yes, that is how I interpret it as well, but that is not what the most reputable scholars emphasize. You can go back to Summerfield for an interpretation like that but when you read the rest of his book, you won't want to use it. Again, I am limited by the sources here. Wait until you see my Sarah Trimmer page - I don't even have a real biography for that page. It's a nightmare. Awadewit03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to Rousseau...odd he's not mentioned in the "Gender" section. I would have expected it there.
Yes, I realized after I finished the article that perhaps that would have been more appropriate. Do you think I should move the whole section on Rousseau? Awadewit03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for a while, adding refs and such. I now want to receive comments and advice to know where to go from here. Specifically:
The history section - Good sectioning?
Should information about women in Beijing opera go under history, under Dan (the female Beijing opera role), or in its own section?
I can't find good references for the aesthetics of Beijing opera. What should be done with that section?
Should I list specific plays in the repertoire section?
Sectioning in History is good. I don't think rephrasing the title is necessary though.
Woman in Beijing Opera is probably not significant enough for its own section, and fits well enough under Dan.
The current references for aesthetics section seems fine for me. Are you going to expand the section?
For specific plays, I would recommend starting a separate new list, and just put a see also link in the section.
Other than those, all I have to say for now is that several sections in "Performers and roles" and "Aesthetic aims and principles" will have to be expanded. Total of two pictures for the entire article might be a bit few. Good work, good article! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. What do you mean by "rephrasing the title" in regards to the history section? The problem with the aesthetics section is not that the references that are there are bad, its that I can't seem to find anything good beyond that, so expanding the section will be difficult. I'll keep at it though.--Danaman504:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Having expanded the article up from a stub, I'd appreciate some guidance on where to go from here. As it's my first major piece of wikipedia work, I'd appreciate more experienced opinions. In particular, I'd like to know:
Is the article is reasonably clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic?
Does it go into the correct depth? (There are potentially reams of details that could be expanded on; does it hit the right note?)
Does the structure help, or is it a bit too sub-sectioned?
Explaining the billing side first, and the rating side second, is technically the wrong way round, but it's the way I usually explain the topic to people. Doing it the other way round seems to leave them bogged down in detail. Does it work in wikipedia?
Any manual of style elements I've missed.
The lead is undoubtedly weak; I've spent little time on it in the theory that fixing the body of the article will let the lead flow. All hints gratefully received.
All comments gratefully received - I'd rather a harsh comment on something I've missed than leaving it unfixed. Winklethorpe21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Several sections have multiple one sentence paragraphs. Consider forming these into more complete paragraphs. The lead displays this. Morphh3:33, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
In this phrase "property could have been let for on a particular valuation", I'm not familar with the meaning of the word "let" as used here. Morphh0:14, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
"An evolving systems of rates" seems like it should say "Evolving systems of rates" or "An evolving system of rates". Morphh0:16, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Misplaced Pages:Summary style.
Please notice: I will be on vacation from July 4th to July 13th and probably unable to respond during that time.Johnnywtalk15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Very impressive article, congratulations. Two things, however: 1) You will not need to submit for inclusion in the offline version, as inclusion of FAs is automatic. Or you might submit right now to get it done during the FAC process. 2) You will probably need a few print sources to go through FAC. Some people there seem to think that the net will crash in a few days, and that the only things we will be left with are silex stones and print sources. So any print magazine is good, any book with an ISBN is great. Here are a few:
Thank you very much! For the nice words, the info about the offline version and your suggestions. My thoughts:
Most sources currently used are print magazines — luckily there's an active Tool community transcribing and scanning these. But I'll guess I'll have to find some more of their ISBN# and use the right template to include that info. Since we only used inline citations and there is no comprehensive Tool bio (the closest thing right now is the WP article :), a reference section listing some "offline" articles seems to be useless. Following your suggestion I gathered what I could from Google books and included 3-4 new (traditional offline) sources.
The genres mentioned in the article are thoroughly sourced. Still, due to editorial reasons, some sources are placed in the beginning of the article, some in the bio, and some in the subsection about the genre allusions, all depending on the context. At times, this invites people to change the genres mentioned in the infobox at will. Would it be wise to gather the barrage of genre citations at the very beginning of the article, in the infobox and then depending on context as they are now?
I created a further reading section that at this point also lists a (quite unique) online source. Listing this under EL would complicate things a bit, I guess. What do you think about the "further reading" bit?
No worries, it's deserved every bit. Now about what you write:
I had a look at that Tool website of yours... That's pretty impressive. I wish there was such an active community about some other subjects, too. But it raises a question. Isn't that blatant copyright violation? I'm not sure at all, but if it is, you cannot point to it from here. Still, it shouldn't bother you, as you have all the right sources and can give the links in private if asked during FAC. To cite newspapers and books, I recommend Template:cite news, and Template: cite book. Template: cite web is also good as it provides the retrieval date, etc. For the mags, be sure to give the ISSN.
About the genre, people generally don't put refs in the infobox, althought nothing is against it. My opinion is that you should only link in the body of the article, and keep an eye on that infobox to correct any "wild" changes. If you get in a dispute, then the references will come in handy. About these refs, you shouldn't have any in the lead (WP:LEAD). The lead is supposed to sum up the article, which is already sourced in its body. So you can't have any refs in there.
I'm all in favour of the Further Reading section. This is sure to impress the FAC people, althought I'm not sure what is the recommended order for FR/refs/EL. I'll have a look.
Well, the only criticism i feel you might get (apart from the eternal 1a, "excellent prose", that is a permanent bug for everyone) is that you may have too much references. The article is 80kb, and that's a bit long. Remember thought, that none of these two is an actual failing criterion, so don't let them give you any trouble.
Good luck at FAC!
Sad as it may be, you are probably right about not-linking to the transcripts. Will try to find the issn wherever possible and insert them; also will rm the direct link.
And regarding the sources about the genre and in the lead: I can't find the passage that says that Leads should be w/o their own sources. The only thing that is said is "It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate. "Which probably translates to "you don't need to source what has already been sourced in the body". Will take a closer look and probably move some of the sources to the body where appropriate.
You're right, there is nothing precisely against sources in the lead, and most FAs have one or two. But as you said, most of the material in the lead should be present in the article, and this is where the sources should be. --SidiLemine11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A relatively new article that was recently mentioned in the DYK column. I'm hoping that I can get this to GA status, but first I want to see what improvements/expansions need to be made. Thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn21:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that this article has real potential to reach GA status. All it needs is to be cleaned up some more. I've already gone in and added citations to all the necessary places (except for one and I may just delete that bit) but it could still use some additional editing, clean-up, etc. Any suggestions, comments, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:The most readily apparent change that needs to be made is the inclusion of references and clean-up for the Homages section. If you can't find any reliable sources for that section, I would remove it. Also, the images need fair use rationales. --Brandt Luke Zorn21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this article was originally on the Elfen Lied main page but at the request of some it was moved to its own article and expanded. Any and all comments are welcome to improve it. Auxfusion14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, I brought this to GA status a few months back quite easily (there's been so much written and said about this song), but I've pretty much let it sit since then. This has the potential, with the resources available, to be a Featured Article. Since there's plenty of source material to work from, I'm mainly looking for feedback largely on how to make this a better article: everything to prose issues to punctuation to layout. Nevertheless, in-depth analysis of the article in any form at this point would be much appreciated. WesleyDodds09:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
LuciferMorgan
A lot of red links which aren't need are present.
With the song samples, spread them to sections throughout the article (thus eradicating the unneeded section) - for example, the article has a "Live performances" section so wouldn't the live version of the song be better off in there somewhere? Wouldn't the two cover clips be better off in the "Cover versions" section also?
There's one / two sentence paragraphs in places which makes it stubby - they perhaps could be merged and rewritten to improve flow.
Weasly words in places - like "acclaimed", "famous", "highly popular", "notable" - adjectives are hardly ever needed in an encyclopaedia.
Points have now been addressed and taken care of. I admit I'm having trouble finding a way to rephrase the sentence "Like the song itself, the music video for 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' has been highly popular and acclaimed." Any suggestions? WesleyDodds11:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't think the article proves the video was "highly popular", but proves it was acclaimed. I think the awards you list for the video prove acclaim, but not popularity. LuciferMorgan00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've fixed this now. I've also been moving some text around and adding more cited info while addressing your points. Any more thoughts? WesleyDodds10:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
""Smells Like Teen Spirit" was, along with "Come as You Are", one of a few new songs to be recorded during the Nevermind sessions."
The word "new" needs replacing as it's redundant. Definitely FAC material though - I'd bite the bullet and go for FAC. LuciferMorgan19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess I should clarify that line. Nirvana originally had recorded a bunch of songs intended for their second album in a studio session in 1990. Once they signed with Geffen and actually started recording Nevermind in 1991, they recorded a bunch of songs they already had, but in the meantime Cobain had written two or three new songs, including "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Come as You Are". I'll try and clarify that in the article. WesleyDodds23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I've addressed all those points, verified all the references that were not added by me, added even more cited material that I picked up at the library, and tweaked the text as I've gone along. I'll probably put it up at FAC within the next day. Any suggestions on how to expand the lead? To me that seems the only section that's somewhat lacking. WesleyDodds13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
ShadowHalo
Some small things:
Rather than having five bullet points in the infobox for the #1 position, only do one and put all of the countries in parentheses.
I did a preview edit and adding the "type" field didn't alter the infobox at all, so I assume it's not applicable when listing an album track in a single's infobox. WesleyDodds04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be one or more references for the table of chart positions. There are various ways to format it. You can put citations in the table headers (Hollaback Girl). If there are lots of individual ones, you can put them after the name of the chart (Don't Speak). Or you can do a separate section in the Notes/References section so long as it's clear which references cover which charts (Cool (song)).
Minor question: The American and British chart placings are cited in the text. Sbould I also cite them in the chart? WesleyDodds23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've cited all the ones I could verify. There's a number of chart positions I couldn't info on. Should they just be removed? WesleyDodds08:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If there aren't references available for the chart positions, then they should be removed. You may want to see if you can find when they were added in and try asking those users. (If you do find sources, let me know. I've been trying to find somewhere that has chart positions from before the 1990s but to no avail so far.) If the references are provided in the main article, then I wouldn't worry too much about including them in the table, especially since adding the same source for the same Billboard charts would be somewhat redundant. If someone at FAC finds it an issue, then they can be inserted pretty easily. ShadowHalo20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the page history, almost every single chart placing was added by the same anonymous IP. While I found no discrepancies when I verified the chart positions I could find reference for, it's probably best to take out the ones without reference. WesleyDodds01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:CITE/ES, there is no set citation format. What matters is consistency and that all the important information is listed. I always use the referencing guideline I used in college (some variation of Chicago, I think). As long as one style is used consistently in the article, it's fine. Honestly, I always thought you changed the book citations in articles we've worked on together because you preferred a particular citation style :) WesleyDodds03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"In the United Kingdom, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" reached #7, but charted for 184 weeks" - but seems misplaced, I know what you are getting at, but that placing was a big deal at the time.
Fixed
I tried to ce this and failed: "though it lost to the Red Hot Chili Peppers's "Give it Away" and "Layla" by Eric Clapton, respectively. The loss to Clapton" - Loss is repeated in consecutive sentences; but I can't put my finger on a different word.
Rephrased
"It was anticipated that the follow up single "Come as You Are" would be the song to cross over to mainstream formats." - Can you clarify if this assumption was made by Geffin, or by Nirvana and Geffin?
I really don't think the source explicitly says. I suppose it's inferred that it's Geffen. I'll check soon.
The book doesn't specify; the quote is "'Teen Spirit' was not supposed to be the hit. The second single, 'Come as You Are,' was supposed to be the track that would cross over to other formats; 'Teen Spirit' was the base-building alternative cut." I supposed it's inferred everyone involved with the band made this assumption, since the statement is followed by Goldberg's quote, but I don't want to make a logical leap. WesleyDodds14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"and added, "As Nirvana knows only too well" - Not sure what is right and wrong here, but even though its a direct quote, my preference would be that "As" is not capitalised. There are a few instances of this.
Hi. Just created this article from scratch as it's a book I've owned and loved for many years and appears quite notable in view of authorship and popularity at the time. Think this could be a great (FA) article and would appreciate people's thoughts on how to make it so! GDallimore (Talk) 02:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's plain brown leather! :) But a picture of the title page, preface or contents pages might be an idea. Thanks. I'll see what comes out best. GDallimore (Talk) 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
a more detailed map of northern Kent would be good, showing the relevant items discussed in the article eg town (obviously), beach, Whitstable and oyster beds, windfarm, Canterbury etc Done
generally try to remove some of the uses of "Herne Bay" and replace with "the town" or "the area" as it doesn't read well with so much repetition in some of the sections Done
use the {{main|ARTICLE}} template eg in the Politics section
create an "Architecture" section discussing the general style and any individual buildings
does the article need Pre-20th and 20th/21st century sections (perhaps the most recent 21st century paragraphs would be better elsewhere in the article, possibly the economy section), either
I think the historical census detail would be better in "Demographics" as a paragraph detailing the growth of the town.
expand the paragraph on the harbour, in the History section, and move to "Economy" Done
more information could be added to the "Economy" section, with details of the industries mentioned, Done
change the format of the "Popular culture" section, removing the list, discuss why the town was used in all of these productions, possibly because of its traditional seaside look Done
do we need the bus timetable in the "Transport links" section, details discussing why the routes are in place would be better - Margate, neighbouring resort - Canterbury, main city Done
expand the "Twin towns" section with detail of the comparisons between the towns and work done with each other Done
more detail needed in the "Famous residents" section, eg short explanation of what Bob Holness did, what popstars is etc, try to remove the list format Done
The history section needs its own article (i.e. History of York City F.C.), so that the section appearing in the main article can be shortened. I've had a look at the other featured articles and their history sections average about 1,000 words. Also I think the prose needs improving in certain parts of the history section, particularly the Division Yo-Yoing bit.
Comment Try and combine the short paragraphs of 2 senteces, 3 lines etc into full flowing paragraphs.-- Zleitzen17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments by Qwghlm
Be consistent in use of singular/plural - either is fine but stick to one.
I would put the "Some sources state" sentence after the sentence about the club's foundation - that way a definite fact is followed by a partially-verified statement.
I actually think you don't need to reference every sentence with a footnote; easily-verified and non-controversial information such as movements between divisions are not necessary. The red & blue NET footnote could just become a general reference.
Done09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole history section should be a lot shorter.
The prose is quite halting, a lot of the sentences are a bit stubby and could be joined together, e.g.
York were elected to the Football League in 1929. They originally played at Fulfordgate, from 1921-1932. York moved to their present home of Bootham Crescent in the summer of 1932.
really could be better, expand the first sentence (perhaps worth mentioning who York replace when they joined the League and the reasons for their election?) and merge the second and third together.
The paragraphs detailing the placings in the Third and Fourth Divisions in the 1960s and 70s becomes very hard to read very quickly - summarise it without going into too much boring details.
"In the clubs first season (1922-23), maroon shirts were worn, with white shorts and black socks. In the 1930's..." - "club's" should have an apostrophe, "1930s" should not.
Staff section should be cut down, I would just have the coaching team and the board listed. The flags don't look right either, consider removing them (see WP:FLAG, which is not policy but worth bearing in mind)
There's probably a few more minor ones but those are the main ones. The main issue is the prose in the History section - it needs to be more concise, and the sentences should flow together better. The manual of style's notes on summary style and guide to writing better articles are useful resources in restructuring prose to.
I don't think you need to reference the same footnote for five consecutive sentences (e.g. ) In fact, I think is cited 17 times in a row... just add the cite at the end of the last relevant sentence.
For me, the biggest issue in the article that needs to be addressed is the overwhelming emphasis on how peer review works in the sciences with much less emphasis given to PR in the humanities and social sciences. --Myke Cuthbert01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know what to rate this under the FBI Project Box, and since we don't have a lot of members, I thought it would be better to get this reviewed by Peer Review. BlackBear14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Wasted Sapience
Interesting subject. Sizable article with some room for improvement.
Needs more links to other articles. A lot more links. How could you not link to September 11 attacks or the FBI?
Image doesn't work.
There appears to be something wrong with the referencing. Probably just a simple code mistake somewhere around reference #40.
"Only the New York Post and NBC News letters were actually found; the existence of the other three letters is inferred from the pattern of infection." Reference that. In fact, most of the overview need referenced.
"More than Twenty-two people developed anthrax infections, some of the victims have been covered up by the FBI, eleven of the life-threatening inhalation variety." Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Reword if that's not what you're going for.
The letters sections need references. Don't be afraid to use the same source more than once in the article.
I don't think we need to have the notes in actual note format. Entering them as a quote should be fine.
Don't have simple external links within the article themselves. Use <ref></ref> tags everytime you reference or mention an outside link within the article text.
Use a quote template or something similar for the dialoge in the Congressional oversight section.
Don't use MLA, APA, or any other high school or college research paper referencing in the articles. This is Misplaced Pages, not an English class. Use <ref></ref> tags. See Misplaced Pages:Referecing.
The principal means of decontamination is fumigation with chlorine dioxide gas. Reference that.
The comments from 'bio-weapons experts and 'Comments from government officials' seem un-encyclopedic. It's outside the scope of Misplaced Pages to provide commentary about anything. If they are notable in the investigation and have anything notable to say, move it to another appropriate part of the article. Remove all quotes, comments, whatever, which are not notable and remove the sections.
Further reading:"Anthrax Powder - State of the Art?" by Gary Matsumoto (Science, November 28, 2003) Fix that.
Related events: Move notable events into other parts of the article, the Timeline, or the See Also section.
There are four images of the letters and a diagram, but no images of the people involved. Find images of Tom Brokaw, Steven Hatfield, some FBI agents involved, some victims, ect. Make sure that they are alright by Misplaced Pages image copyright standards.
Make sure that all claims are referenced. Except for the lead section, every claim in a truly great article should have at least one reference to back it up.
This article was once a featured article, but because of problems with upkeep, it was delisted. I plan on looking the article over again thoroughly before renominating if for FA and I'm looking for suggestions as to what should be done about the format of the article. I think it's in fairly good shape now, but there are just some problems with the flow (it seems that facts are just thrown into sections without good linkage) and maybe the sections. There is also a definite problem with the lead, too! So if anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to note them here or edit the page accordingly. Thanks a lot. └┘talk14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to be sure the article size at over 60k, use of templates, and references and footnotes are all right. If there is a city model we would use it. WikiProject Cities looks good. Thank you. -Susanlesch02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding size - other FA city pages range from 59 to 90kb. The Famous Minneapolitans section is quite long for what it is. I would create a List of famous Minneapolitans subpage (such as List of people from Minnesota), and add only one paragraph on famous people and mash it in with Pop culture, or you could just provide a "people" link in the Mlps nav template. From my experience "Famous X" sections are quite the spam magnet and moving that section to a subpage will help keep the main article stable. -Ravedave03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, then not to worry about article size. Thank you for the reference points, Ravedave.
Re: famous Minneapolitans, if you are interested in the history of this section I can track down some links for you. The short story is this section hasn't been spammed in quite some time for some real reasons: 1) the article has criteria for additions to this section (plus a request to discuss first on the talk page), 2) a cap on the number of people, and 3) what was a list has been transformed into prose. Also, as you've seen in the to do list, citations will be required quite soon. Also, you are looking not at editable text but at a template, once removed from stray edits. So I think we're very safe. That reminds me, Dr. Cash's GA review asked for better citations in this section (they are for the most part there but not quite as visible as other cites) and I'll fix that right now. Thank you again. Best wishes. -Susanlesch06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me but there must be some mistake. Please see the article edit history. National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) data that another editor (perhaps accidentally) removed at 06:03, 31 March 2007, was restored in edit 05:36, 2 April 2007, about 12 hours ago. Is National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) data acceptable to you? And regarding the dismissal of a reference, I am sorry to have to disagree with your assessment. (And by the way, the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) for Los Angeles/Oxnard, California and Chicago, Illinois are both linking to Charles Fisk. But thank you very much for your comments. Best wishes. -Susanlesch17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)a
Regarding what used to be ref #21, yes the NOAA is fine for me, however the particular page linked was not , because it was just a landing page with no info, but I see it is removed now. I guess we'll just have to disagree on the Fisk page. Is there any reason multiple cites are grouped into single refs? I have usually seen one cite one ref. I'll try and do a read through soon for copy editing. -Ravedave05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No, if one looks at the edit history, the "particular page" was exactly the same links. Another editor added the landing page and I removed it after the restoration, thanks to your suggestion. Multiple cites are used in short passages where a whole lot of footnotes would render a sentence or short paragraph difficult to read. Not any easy technique, and one that I am learning thanks to a WikiProject Biography peer review. I imagine there is room for improvement and can look up the examples they gave me if you need them. -Susanlesch05:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I made my first pass today; it had been quite a while since I had read the whole article. Kudos for those who have worked on it - I think it's quite good. I certainly think the article has reached A-class quality. I have a couple of gripes though. 1) The last paragraph in Demographics compares MPLS with U.S. averages wrt race, income, etc. I think it would be much more useful to compare the city to other urban areas. Several of the categories would lead to opposite conclusions. I don't know of a good source, but if one can't be found, I would lean toward deleting the paragraph, as it's somewhat misleading. 2) I think the sentence about the 45 degree marker on Golden Valley Rd. is superfluous trivia. Is there any good reason to keep it? --Appraiser20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your work on the article is a great improvement. Thanks for identifying a good place to improve it more. The 45th parallel is gone now, as it is in Geography of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Re: demographics summary, DiversityData has data but in alpha order (requires too much original research to interpret). So I am copying one of the city of Baltimore's sources, the Brookings Institution comparision of 23 Living Cities for a high level overview. More detail can of course go into the child article Demographics of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Most everyone near the top of Google results (sorry I don't feel qualified to go deeper than that) uses census year 2000 data, except the U.S. Census American Fact Finder (what was used for the 2005 comparison to U.S. averages that caught your eye). I hope this helps. -Susanlesch01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Do you think we are ready for FAC? Would one of you like to do the honors and rate the article again if you think it has improved since GA? I am on my way to double check that the refs are right and working. After that nomination I am thinking of working on one of the multitude of child articles (some had to be created so the city is only cited material) maybe Geography of Minneapolis, Minnesota. -Susanlesch02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Right before you are ready for the FAC, the one last think you should do is go through and do a wikilink cleanup. (yeah, real fun!) Stuff should only be wikilinked one time (with the possible exception of infoboxes and the like), and it should be done the first time the subject appears in the article. (I just did a really quick glace and saw that General Mills was linked twice) Also, don't overclutter or underuse them, try to find the nice balance, whatever that may be. It's important to do this right before the nomination, because if you end up moving text around again the location of the links will change and then you could end up having to move them again. Gopher backer03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Gopher backer, thanks, extra wikilinks have been removed (there were a few you are right -- unless someone wants to remove all the names of countries and U.S. states, this is done). -Susanlesch04:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
comment - It might be worth mentioning there were Dakota settlements in the Minneapolis area before the Europeans came. . I don't think the sports section needs the table of professional teams, as they are already mentioned in the text. Why are the wild and thunder mentioned? They are St.Paul teams. -Ravedave17:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. The first sentence of the article, after the lead and under History is "Dakota Sioux were the region's sole residents until explorers arrived from France in about 1680." Also, the article's first image is of a Dakota chief, captioned "Taoyateduta was among the 121 Sioux leaders who from 1837–1851 ceded what is now Minneapolis." -Susanlesch18:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"in the region" doesn't make it sound like they had settlements in Minneapolis, just in Minnesota. The page I linked specificlly mentions some of their settlements in Minneapolis. For a culture that was around as many years as white settlers have been in the state I think more than a sentence should be used. -Ravedave19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Re-added "The Dakota were hunters and gatherers and soon found themselves in debt to fur traders. Pressed by a whooping cough outbreak, loss of buffalo, deer and bear, and loss of forests to logging, in 1851, the Mdewakanton sold the land west of the river and ceded the east side, allowing settlement in 1852." which was moved to History of Minneapolis, Minnesota on 10 March. A copy may be in two places now, but this is the part I know (and wrote, incidentally, based on the same Minneapolis Public Library citations you give). I think that we are fast approaching too much Dakota history in the necessarily very short History section in the Minneapolis article. -Susanlesch20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Wild and Thunder, I can only offer my opinion that their presence may answer questions (the Wild was a frequent addition to the page's table until the table moved to a template) and that they are doing no harm. One might want to know where the hockey team is in a northern city for example. Taking the question to an extreme would it mean that Humphrey Terminal could be mentioned but not Lindbergh Terminal (the main airport) because their address is in Saint Paul? -Susanlesch02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Seeing no other replies to your comment, I looked at the U.S. cities that are featured articles and find no compelling reason to keep or remove the pro sports table -- some have them and some don't. -Susanlesch02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely there is more content that can be added to this article? It seems quite brief. For example, what is the etymology of the word? Why do spar's form most readily in water? Doesn't a spar have a light coloration? What about the properties of the named varieties of spar, rather than just listing the minerals from which they are formed? (Iceland spar, Pear spar, Rhomb spar, Bitter spar, Satin Spar Gypsum, Dogtooth spar, Nailhead spar, ... &c.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is much that can be added. The only problem is that only two people besides me have helped add on to the article, and I'm certain that none of us has any background info. Thanks very much for the review, RJHall! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to see how this article has come along since I've done a lot of editing on it. Is there any section that needs expanding, shortening, change of location on the page. I'm just looking for what else needs to be improved with the page overall. Maybe then I can put it up for GA or FA. El Greco19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Konstable
Haven't quite read through the whole thing, so might add more later, but here we go:
The History section does not quite follow the WP:SUMMARY style. While it is good that you moved the bulk into its own article it would be nice to see some sort of a brief summary of history (though of course with a city like Athens, even a brief summary could become quite long).
Historical population section is a bit strange. There is no context, it just gives statistics.
I think it would be useful to have some more info on Geography. What is there already is short and refers to another city Los Angeles, of which I know almost nothing, so this reference is not all that useful.
I am not sure if this is significant, but I remember hearing about Athens' polution problems, and in particular acid rain damaging historic landmarks - which is not really mentioned in the articles.
I would recommend you try to get more "solid" sources - most of the citations are web links.
There are a lot of unreferenced blocks, including a lot of un-attributed statistics.
If you haven't already had a look, you might find it helpful to glance through articles on other cities that have already achieved FA status: WP:FA#Geography and places
So I've decided to remove the historical population section, as anything you write about the population might as well be in the whole population section. Though I will keep the chart. I'll see what I can do about the History of Athens section, but I try to avoid that section sometimes. I don't know what to put in, how much or what should or shouldn't be included. You look at the History of Athens page and it's huge. Trying to summarize that will atleast give you a large section, but I'll see what I can do with that. I'm also currently looking for information on the geography of Athens, and it pollution problems. I understand what you mean by "solid" sources, but if the information is only avaliable online, do I need solid source then or are the online sources fine? Some of those online sources lead to print material. The Athens transportation figures for example are linked to PDF files, because that is how they are only avaliable. So, is that fine or do I still need a hard/solid source? And one more question. Those section that I have sourced so far, are they sourced enough, or do they still need more references? El Greco23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There it lots of detail about off-field matters, but more detail of his on-field performance would be useful. How long did he play for OFK? When did he make his Panserraikos debut? It is mentioned that he was played out of position, what is his preferred position?
This article has come a long way, and is almost ready for FAC. Please, lend a hand in polishing the article to Wikiepedia's finest standards. Aditya Kabir16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments
What about the administration of the area? Municipal wards, thana (which is Shahbag thana, as the article states) etc? I see that the infobox contains such information, but how about creating a section that will state the administration in some more detail, and also address administrative problems or uniqueness, if any? The section can be named "Civic administration" and could include electric supply, telecommunication, sewage, transport etc. I just found that Dhaka does not list Shahbag as a thana, why?
Explanation: The information in the Dhaka artcile must be dated. Number of thanas in Dhaka has incresed twofolds in the last decade. Aditya Kabir21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
What about geography and climate of the area? (data can be taken from Dhaka, mentioning that the neighbourhood does not have a separate met office and utilises Dhaka met office, if that is the case). In geography also can be mentioned any water bodies, or any other special geo feature (like the garden, if it exists still).
"with the decline of mughal power"--nothing before this prepares use for this sentence. Atleast one sentence abt when Mughal rule started in Dhaka should precede this.
"Garden of the Kings" -- though this is introduced in intro, do so again. The intro is meant to be a summary of what in the rest of the article. In fact that whole para is problematic: "lost splendour", we haven't told about any splendor before this point.
Questions: It is written four sentences befor the splendor thing that - ...Shahbag or the Garden of the Kings became a forgotten project - is it falling short on clarification? Aditya Kabir14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"first office of Bangladesh Betar" -- is this then a post 1971 event? Date this. "the Bangla Academy during the Language movement. " the bangla academy article says it was establised in 1955, after the lang movement.--ppm20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Urban layout" and "Civic life" are not well organized. The later has stuff that should be in the former. "Urban layout" on the other hand, almost solely focuses on three old mansions, which do not dominate the current urban design. "platform for all political-cultural movements" -- "all" is streatching it. "The Bangla Academy initiated the first Boishakhi Mela ... is also sponsored by major cell-phone and carbonated drink brands. " -- last part quite unnecessary
Request: Can someone lead me to a couple examples of appropriate content of Urban Layout and Civic Life sections? Aditya Kabir12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Request: Can't locate Walters' full name in any of the sources I am currently using. Can someone with an access to Raj Records help me on this? Aditya Kabir12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have gone through the whole article and found some of the parts that should be improved. Besides, this article demands some of the points to be added in order to give it a complete touch.
This article started in a nice way but ended up with a messy style. I didn’t found any organized conclusion and I just felt all on a sudden it ends.
Shahbag’s importance related to our liberation war can be arranged with a separate sub heading. It will be more appropriate if we can provide a picture of Banga Bondhu’s 7-e March Speech on Ramna Rasecourse.
I personally felt this article demands two special pictures, 1. A picture of Dhaka University, if it is ‘Aporajeo Bangla’, that will be the best. 2. A picture of Ramna Park.
Ramna Bomb-explosion can also be a sub heading as it was (or is!) one of the burning issues related to this place. We should also mention terrorist’s fate and current undergoing investigation by the law-n-order force with in one or two lines.
Thanks for the comments. I do disagree about giving prominence to the recent incidents per WP:RECENT. The 7th march speech of Sheikh Mujib is still under copyright, and hence we shouldn't use it here. Does Aparajeyo Bangla fall under the Shahbag thana? --Ragib08:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The article once says that Paribanu was the daughter of Khwaja Salimullah (History Section) and later says she was his sister (Urban Layout Section). I'm not sure which one is correct. Could someone please check and correct it?-Arman Aziz11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This page should be reviewed to be expanded. Admins say that the lists must also be put into prose writing. Someone help me because I cannot do it by myself. This is my hgih school so please help me do make it look good.--DvDknight16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions
Merge the "Mission" and "Facts" sections into one section called "Overview"
Rename "Outstanding features/programs" to "School Programs," possibly transfer it from list form to a different, smaller, more descriptive form.
I rearranged the article according to some of the suggestions stated above (I just moved sections/subsection, no actual content was modified). Rjgodoy01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I put {{cleanup-laundry}} template. It had been reverted before —no reason given— in revision as of 2007-03-31T16:13:52 . I think it explicits the problem on the right place. Rjgodoy00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the Girl Guide and Girl Scout center in Adelboden, Switzerland. I'd simply like to make it better, hopefully to at least make GA.Rlevse 12:55, 31 March 2007
I've recently brought francium up to GA level, and I'd like to take it further. I'm fairly confident about the accuracy and prose. However, I would appreciate input and/or help on expanding it (which is hard, given the utter lack of available information) and refining the technical/style specifics (such as units). Any help would be superb. --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is pretty good. One thing that would be interesting to add are more details about how it was discovered (I think it involved co-precipitation with caesium salts, as discussed in the article caesium perchlorate). I would also qualify the statement about it being the "last naturally occurring element to be discovered". More specifically, it was the last element that was originally discovered in nature rather than synthesized from other elements. Other elements that were discovered later, such as astatine, neptunium, and plutonium, were eventually found to occur in nature in trace amounts as well (I'm sure there is a more concise and clear way of phrasing it than mine... ;)
A more general comment is about the reliability of the references. Most are references to a few websites or online periodic tables or encyclopedias. I think the article would stand better to scrutiny with more references to the "hard" scientific literature: journals, review articles, monographs, and advanced textbooks. --Itub18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll reread the ChemEducator entry, which focuses on the discovery of francium. As for the sources, you're right. Some of them are not the most scholarly of resources. However, in their defense, most of them include references to hard sources, such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. While I would like to be able to cite those sources, Misplaced Pages policy (and common sense) dictates that whichever source was actually accessed should be the one referenced. I do plan on going on a library run at some point, so the references should be juiced up by that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I just did some copyediting, and what I saw was quite good overall, but I do have three suggestions.
Tighten up the lede: it is disproportionately large, and includes some facts that, while cool, need not be mentioned there. This creates obvious redundancies in such a short article. For instance, the employment of Perey, should not, I think, be there, and the "history" section... I'd get it down to at a max 2 paragraphs.
Go to the library and read some books! Maybe find the original articles announcing its discovery? You know this, of course, but I feel like emphasizing it here.
I've truncated the lede somewhat, you may still want the second paragraph to be shaved down. Perhaps tomorrow I will go get some books. --Cryptic C62 · Talk02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
A quick read made me notice FrF2 in the reactions, shouldn't this be FrF? Or am I missing something here? Also, I agree that a description of the isolation method should be included. There's not a lot on Fr in the literature, but that is one thing that is definitely there and important. Thanks! Walkerma03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the discovery bit should be moved into the history section.
The discovery bit is in the history section...
Well that was sort of my point - I'm not sure it is worth having this info twice in the article, I just say who discovered it in the intro! -- Quantockgoblin14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is just style, but I didn't like (in Applications) "but this idea has since been dismissed" - perhaps better refuted/disproved?
You're right, "dismissed" is a bit unscientific. I changed it to "but this idea has since been deemed impractical." I think that should suffice.
Occurrence, nature - I think a reaction scheme here would help like used in Compounds section.
I see two problems with this. One is that doing this would be redundant. The other is that francium doesn't exist naturally as a compound. As such, reactions and compounds have no place in the natural occurence section.
Sorry I meant in the Occurrence, synthesis i.e. Au + O → etc ... but no big deal - I just like seeing it laid out. -- Quantockgoblin14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a little contradiction in the Compounds section ("no compounds or reactions with it have been formed") with discovery section ("with similar chemical properties to caesium"). Maybe no compounds have been isolated would be better? -- just some thoughts Quantockgoblin10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must be a little harsher than that. If no compounds of francium have been isolated, then the entire "Compounds" section is superfluous: "presumed to have similar chemical properties to caesium" seems to me to be a reasonable application of periodicity. However, it would appear that francium perchlorate has been formed, as it coprecipitates with caesium perchlorate, and several other insoluble francium salts are similarly known (Hyde, E.K., Radiochemical Methods for the Isolation of Element 87 (Francium), J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1952, 74, 4181) The article also quotes a value for the Pauling electronegativity of francium, although the Pauling scale is undefined for elements which do not form covalent compounds. The claim that francium has a lower electronegativity than caesium is widely, though not universally, repeated: this would be expected on the basis of periodicity, but measurements show that the ionization energy of francium is higher (4.0712 eV; Andreev, S.V.; Letokhov, V.S.; Mishin, V.I., Laser resonance photoionization spectroscopy of Rydberg levels in Fr, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1987, 59, 1274) than that of caesium (3.89390 eV; Moore, C.E., Ionization potentials and ionization limits derived from the analyses of optical spectra, Natl. Stand. Ref. Data Ser., (U.S. Natl. Bur. Stand.), 1970, 34, 1). I would like to see a more critical review of the available data, without pretending that we can be exhaustive in our review on WP. Physchim62(talk)21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a further problem with the decay energy of Fr. The article text claims that Perey observed 45 keV beta particles and that these are the product of francium decay; the infobox gives a beta decay energy for Fr of 1149 keV... In fact, 45 keV is the energy of beta particles produced by the decay of Ac, as is correctly stated in the infobox for actinium: Perey's equipment was unable to detect beta particles with such a low energy, as is described in the review by Adloff & Kauffman cited in the article, and it is this fact which enabled her to deduce the existence of francium. Physchim62(talk)22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, today I gathered information from hard sources, and I have made a to-do list for myself:
Incorporate information from new sources
Expand and de-suckify the History section
Figure out what's going on with the compounds
I will also use the links that Physchim provided. I appreciate the feedback and support. Please, bear with me for the next couple of days as I try to sift through these materials. --Cryptic C62 · Talk01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've been looking at this National Nuclear Data thing, and frankly, I just don't want to use it. The half-life chart contradicts almost everything on the CRC chart. CRC is more recent (2006) and I think it's more trustworthy. Unless you can show that the NND list is more accurate than the CRC, I'm switching back to the CRC data. NND = cheesy-looking web page. CRC = 2000 page chemistry encyclopedia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
One issue which does not seem to have been mentioned yet is the glaring change in formatting. There are two methods of displaying an specific isotope: The "superscript" method: Fr and the "longhand" method: Francium-221. The whole article save one section uses the superscript method, and the Isotopes section uses the longhand method. This needs to be changed to a single format for consistancy, probably the superscript method since it appears that that is the predominant method. Other than that, I agree that all of the problems listed above should be fixed as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made some significant additions and revisions in an attempt to address your concerns:
Itub: I've significantly expanded the history section after perusing the Chemical Educator article. I've also added several hard sources, including a few highly-reliable encyclopedia entries.
Rmrfstar: The lede is somewhat more proportional to the article, and again, I stumbled upon some good sources.
Physchim62: I rewrote the history section involving decay energies as best I could, though I'm no expert on such technical data.
Jayron32: I transmogrified all of the superscript isotopes to longhand. I based this decision off of Uranium.
That's not to say that you will all be completely satisfied with the revisions :P. Still to be addressed:
Quantockgoblin: I'm still not entirely sure of what you're talking about with the discovery bit. Are you saying the sentence in the lede should be removed? Also, I will try to find and list the exact synthesis reactions, as that's a good idea.
Fix looks good. I didn't have a preference which form you used, as long as it was consistent. Looks fine now. A few more minor points that might need addressing:
External link in main body of article:Stony Brook Physics... Either wikilink or no link...
Prior incorrect data: Why is the 1995 estimate of Francium in the article, if the number is wrong? Seems kinda trivial to report that. Why not just give the current, better, estimate and be done at that.
Fixed both of those. I'm feeling a bit dumb right now. The article Physchim62 pointed out mentions coprecipitation. I have no idea what that is, and I can't find a definition, even here! If someone could tell me what it is, I can work on the compounds section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Still looking better. Sorry I keep finding these pickaninny things, but every time something gets fixed, I find something new that needs fixing:
Encyclopedia Britannica, as good of an encyclopedia as it is, is hardly an authoritative source on isotope data. I would accept CRC Handbook or Merck Index or any of a number of other types of tertiary sources for this type of information, but Britannica... mmm... no. Plus, its not wikilinked, it is externally linked, and again, we shouldn't do external links in the text of an article.
Expansion of history section: Why was Allison's discovery disputed?
That's all I can find for now.
Bah! Pickaninny. That's what peer review is for, right?
Alrighty, I wikilinked Britannica. I feel it's valid to keep it because, as you said, it's a fairly relied-upon source of information. That being said, the fact that it lists such a preposterously wrong number of isotopes perfectly demonstrates how the reported number of isotopes varies from source to source. It's meant to be a demonstrative reference, not an authoritative one.
Somehow I managed to find an article about Allison's device. I only added a sentence to the virginium section, but I think it should be sufficient.
I'm making a fairly major edit to the history section based off a web site and paper I found. As of right now, I'm not done adding the info yet, so don't bother commenting on it *grin*. I do, however, need to find why/how alkalinium was refuted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the number of isotopes. I wouldn't say the number is not "universally accepted", simply that some references are more up-to-date than others. New nuclides are discovered all the time. I would say that the "true" number is the source that lists the largest number of isotopes (as long as you have no reason to believe that they made some up, or that some of the specific isotopes are truly disputed). This will probably be the most recent source that specializes in nuclear chemistry or related fields. Britannica is not an authoritative source about this, and the discrepancy is not worth mentioning IMO. For all we know, the last time they updated their article on francium thoroughly might have been decades ago!
Regarding co-precipitation, perhaps google books will help (I haven't read through the results, but there are many, so I hope there's a good one...) Briefly, co-precipitation happens in this case due to the similar sizes of the caesium and francium cations. What happens is that when you have a solution with Cs+, Fr+, and ClO4- and you obtain crystals, they will have a mixed structure (basicaly CsClO4 with some Cs+ sites replaced by Fr+). This is as opposed to a "normal" precipitation, where you would expect more-or-less-pure crystals of the more saturated solute. --Itub07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I removed all references of Britannica, and cut out the section about discrepant isotope reports. So what you're saying about francium is that if it coprecipitates with caesium perchlorate, then it forms francium perchlorate? In other words, francium forms the same salts as other alkali metals, right? --Cryptic C62 · Talk16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sort of, but not really. What coprecipitation means in this context seems to have something to do with separation by differential solubilities. Basically, if you have a solution with a mixture of ions, say for example, Fe and Pb, these cations will exhibit different solubility in the presence of different anions. For example, gradually increasing the concentration of chloride ions (Cl) to the solution will result in the precipitation of PbCl2 BEFORE FeCl2, owing to the fact that lead (II) cloride is far less soluble than iron (II) chloride. Thus, you could separate a mixture of the two. There are several factors that owe to the solubility of a salt; however the two biggest in comparing cations are probably ionic radius and valence. Since francium and caesium cations are indentical in both size and valence, they apparently coprecipitate; that is in a solution containing a mixture of them, it is impossible to differentiate between them by precipitation techniques. The same could not be said for, say, sodium and francium, since though they are the same valence (and thus will form ionic compounds with the same formula), their vastly different ionic radius will lead to their salts having different solubilities. I am speculating a lot here, but it is an educated WAG, not a total WAG. Does that sound reasonable?--Jayron32|talk|contribs16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can find, there aren't any lists of francium compounds around. Seeing as this isn't the place for speculation, I'm removing the Compounds section. Given that the only source to even mention francium compounds says that none have been made, I think it's better to just leave it out, at least for now.--Cryptic C62 · Talk17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If reliable sources write that they believe francium will act like caesium, you can, I think, include that fact. -- Rmrfstar21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The key point about coprecipitation is not the similarity of the solubilities (although they may indeed be similar), but the fact that having similar charge and radius allows a very dilute ion (Fr+ in this case) to be (co)precipitated together with a saturated ion (Cs+), even if Fr+ is way below saturation. I'll give a concrete quantitative example, although the numbers are made up. Let's assume that the solubility products of CsClO4 and FrClO4 are both 0.01 M^2. Imagine you have a solution that is 0.1 M on Cs+. That means that if the concentration of ClO4- gets above 0.1 M, CsClO4 will precipitate (the product 0.1 M x 0.1 M > 0.01 M^2). Now, let's imagine you have a separate solution with a 1 pM (10^-12 M) concentration of Fr+ (not an unreasonable concentration given the rarity and instability of the element). That means that there's practically no way of precipitating the pure FrClO4, because you would need an impossibly high concentration of ClO4- (10^+11 M, according to the ideal calculation!). But now imagine a mixed solution, with 0.1 M Cs+ and 1 pM Fr+. If you increase ClO4- above 0.1 M, CsClO4 will start to precipitate but, since the crystal structure doesn't "recognize" the difference between Cs+ and Fr+ very well, it will carry along some of the Fr+ (i.e., it will coprecipitate). If you manage to precipitate most of the Cs+ out of the solution (by adding a lot of ClO4-, decreasing the temperature, or evaporating the solvent, for example), you will also (co)precipitate most of the Fr+. While you will never get truly pure francium from this method (it will always be mixed with an excess of caesium), it allows you to separate it from other elements that don't coprecipitate with CsClO4 (maybe Ra, Ac, Pa, Pb, etc., I don't know for sure what else was present in the mixture.) Besides the practical use in separating francium from other elements, the fact that it coprecipitated with caesium was part of the evidence that francium was an alkali metal. --Itub12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you guys want to add in the coprecipitation information where you see fit, that would be great. I sort of almost understand it, but not well enough to incorporate it into the article. Gahh! And I thought I was good at chemistry. --Cryptic C62 · Talk00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I added a short parenthetical note about it to the article. It's probably not worth delving into the topic too deeply in the francium article. One of these days I'll try to create a co-precipitation article... For the time being, there is an interesting quote in the article about Otto Hahn, regarding the importance of co-precipitation for the purification of minute amounts of radioactive elements. I'll paste it here: --Itub08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"As a young graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley in the mid-1930s and in connection with our work with plutonium a few years later, I used his book "Applied Radiochemistry" as my bible. This book was based on a series of lectures which Professor Hahn had given at Cornell in 1933; it set forth the "laws" for the co-precipitation of minute quantities of radioactive materials when insoluble substances were precipitated from aqueous solutions. I recall reading and rereading every word in these laws of co-precipitation many times, attempting to derive every possible bit of guidance for our work, and perhaps in my zealousness reading into them more than the master himself had intended. I doubt that I have read sections in any other book more carefully or more frequently than those in Hahn's "Applied Radiochemistry". In fact, I read the entire volume repeatedly and I recall that my chief disappointment with it was its length. It was too short." --Glenn T. Seaborg.
I think the article is really good now. Although I'm not an expert in Francium and I can't vouch for the accuracy of every statement, the article is well-sourced enough so that interested readers can verify the facts if they want. One remaining issue is the electronegativity. I'm pretty sure that it is an extrapolated/estimated value, as thermochemical data is probably not available. However, it is a value found in many sources, so we can include it. If anyone finds a reference specifically discussing the issue of the electronegativity of francium, please add it!. --Itub08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There is so little reliable information about francium compounds that it doesn't make sense to make a compound section. Instead, I added the compounds from Hyde's journal entry into the characteristics section.
Every source I've looked at says the electronegativity value is 0.7, including those given in the element infobox reference page. Only the article Physchim brought up said anything to the contrary. However, I couldn't actually read the article, since it was in a secure database, and the abstract was not much help. From the documents that I can check, the only logical value to report is 0.7.
Those seem to be the only unresolved/unresolvable issues at this point. I'm still scouring databases to find random tidbits (like the surface tension paper). Once I can call that process complete, I may rewrite the lede to better suit the current article. Thence I believe the article is only a few copyedits away from being ready for FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk05:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I found that Pauling uses the 0.7 value in his book The Nature of the Chemical Bond (1960). It doesn't seem to say where it came from, though... --Itub06:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this is a pretty important classical physics topic. Its failures helped to spawn quantum mechanics and even now it's pretty useful. Please let me know what you all think of the presentation, and derivations. I'll try to flesh out the article titles and page numbers for the 19th century journal references but, if you happen to know of some already, I'd be very grateful. I'd like to bring this to Featured Article status in the near future. Thanks for your time and thoughtful reviews, Willow20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Cryptic C62
I'll read through it and comment as I go.
"Similar examples could be cited for every ..." this sentence is very unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Fixed
What are "first principles" ? Fixed
Can theorems form alliances? "The history of the equipartition theorem is closely allied with that of specific heats" Fixed
There are alot of "unknowns" and question marks in the references. I'll work on this; it's hard to track down 19th-century references! :(
You have a lot of high-quality sources. However, these all seem to be used in the History section. Make sure the applications and equations are well-referenced. The entire Derivations section is missing citations. Fixed
"Pair potential" is red-linked. Either whip up an article for it or give a brief explanation here, as it's not a well-known concept. Fixed
I doubt this is even possible, but if you can find or create a visual for this article, it would definitely help. It is very dense reading, as would be expected of physics theorems. Two figures; any suggestions for more?
"Indeed, the failure of the equipartition theorem to predict the specific heats of solids and diatomic gases was the first hint to physicists of the 19th century that classical physics was incorrect and that a new physics — now understood as quantum physics — was needed." I have two problems with this sentence:
It's very long, compounded by the fact that it doesn't have commas. Consider either breaking it apart or removing some of less important phrases, such as "to physicists of the 19th century."
The word "hint" seems like an odd choice. What about "sign" or "evidence"?
"to predict the specific heats of solids and diatomic gases" is used twice within the same paragraph.
"For example, the ideal gas law can be derived from equipartition. So can the Dulong-Petit law, which describes the specific heat of all solids at high temperatures." that can probably be schlorbed together. I like "The ideal gas law, for example, can be derived from equipartition, as can the Dulong-Petit law." or "Both the ideal gas law and the Dulong-Petit law can be derived from equipartition."
Why is "quadratically" italicized?
These may seem overly nitpicky, but phrasing and flow is especially important for the introduction. Many a time have I read the introduction to a theory article and gotten discouraged because of how dense it was. An easy-to-read intro will encourage more people to read the entire article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cryptic, thanks for your excellent notes! I've tried to fix up the lead as you recommend, and made some further changes as well. Please let me know what you think! :) Willow23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Good revisions. However, I noticed the section title "Failure in the quantum regime". Regime seems like an odd word choice. While it can be defined as a ruling or prevailing system, the dominant definition and the most common connotation is a dictatorship. I'm fairly certain that quantum mechanics were not a precursor to Saddam Hussein. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I was thinking; it does sound really poetic, doesn't it? I must've heard someone say that somewhere, and it stuck to my brain like Velcro. ;) Hopefully, it reads better now; thanks for the tips! :) Willow21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Google finds over 90,000 hits for "quantum regime" and over 73,000 for "classical regime" -- it's very much a standard phrase. Jheald14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Google is not an all-knowing entity. That's Misplaced Pages. Even if we are using Google as a proving ground, 90,000 pales in comparison to the 5,850,000 hits for "quantum mechanics." To the average user, "regime" will incorrectly imply dictatorship. --CrypticC62 · Talk18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments, not a full review (more comprehensive comments, maybe, in a day or two)
Something the article does is link to Hamiltonian quite early on with relatively little explanation. Despite my first instincts, I quite like that the article does this, because it's a useful set-up for the relativistic gas example, which is a very useful corrective to the idea that the energy is always ½kT per degree of freedom. But the idea of a Hamiltonian is quite an advanced concept compared to the entry level for a lot of the potential audience for this article. And Misplaced Pages isn't giving you much help at the moment. At the moment the link of the page is pointing to the Hamiltonian disambig page - which probably isn't going to help, if a reader has never heard of the word before. But the articles WP does currently have, eg Hamiltonian system, Hamiltonian mechanics, Hamilton's principle and Hamilton's equations don't currently altogether help either -- I fear that none of them has an introduction/summary which is pitched remotely simply enough for the entry-level of people coming to this article; and they could use being knocked together big-time. The one which probably most ought to be fixed up as a potential entry-point is Hamiltonian mechanics, which is supposed to be the category lead for Category:Hamiltonian mechanics. An introductory paragraph there, after the contents, glossing (but not proving) some of the results set out in Hamilton's equations, in particular H=T+V and the form of the equations of motion, might be the way to go. In fact the best solution would probably be to merge the two pages together outright, with most of the content now at Hamilton's equations coming in first, and the material now at Hamiltonian mechanics coming in as things get more sophisticated.
You're definitely right, although I had hoped to avoid all the work. When I first started out here, I also encountered some difficulties with a few pure-math Wikipedians over my overly basic description of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation; I kind of dread having to wrangle with them again. :(
Okay, I've added the merge tags, as an indicative first step. Let's see whether anybody wails! Jheald14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictures. It might be nice to show a pic of something like the Maxwellian distribution of 1d kinetic energies, with 1/2 kT marked, to show how much energy spread there can be in a single quadratic co-ordinate; and then a pic of the energy per d.o.f. for 3d and say 12d, to show how the energy per d.o.f. becomes very sharply defined for systems of more degrees of freedom as the Central Limit Theorem kicks in. Would pics for the corresponding relativistic gas show nice qualitative differences ?
Pics showing the effects of frozen-out d.o.f.s due to energy-level spacing might be nice, too - showing how this makes an impact even before you put in Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac effects. The nice thing about pics is they allow you to talk qualitatively about the effects, while being able to defer the quantitative details.
Maybe there's a way of combining these two figures to show how equipartition fails when you go from continuous to quantized energy levels. I'll brood on it for a few days.
For the very simple quadratic case, would it be an idea to work through the maths starting with Boltzmann factors from the canonical distribution? Without prejudice to the more detailed and general derivations still being considered later.
Hi Willow. Thanks for pointing me to this informative article. It contains a lot of great information and some useful equations. However, I'm very concerned that the article is having a hard time deciding on the level of presentation. If it's going to be technical in nature, the theorem and its derivations need to be right up front. If it's going to be less technical, it can't discuss the theorem in such general terms. I was frustrated reading the first few sections because, first, the theorem and its consequences were discussed in detail without actually stating the theorem, and second, the theorem was stated in a very general form (in the Hamiltonian formalism but without explaining it) but derivations were pushed to the end. A start at improving things, which I think another reviewer suggested, would be to first present the theory in a very simple form, perhaps only explaining the E=N/2*kT result and alluding to an elementary derivation. Later in the article the theorem could be generalized. At its current level, I think the history section needs to come after the more general explanation. It'd be nice to discuss the history without such reliance on the general formulation. I'm reminded of the term "weasel words," usually used to refer to POV issues where awkward language is used to avoid saying something offensive; here, I think there are weasel words used to allude to highly technical concepts without defining them. Finally, as I understand things---disclaimer: I'm no thermodynamicist, and it's been awhile since I studied the subject---the equipartition theorem only "breaks down" in the quantum regime due to ergodicity. I suspect the quantum breakdown should be described as a failure of ergodicity. That certainly seems to be the case for the ultraviolet catastrophe, unless there's something I don't understand. Also, the description of Einstein proposing quantum stuff way ahead of everyone else seems to be an exaggeration of the history as I understand it, but I'm no expert there, either. In summary, I can't support this article as a featured or even good article unless some fundamental problems are addressed. Again, though, there's lots of good information here, and I hope it can be shaped into a good article. Sorry for this long, rambling paragraph. Perhaps I can explain my thoughts better if this becomes a dialogue. Best wishes, Gnixon02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the difficulty of presentation. I originally presented everything in its most general form immediately but, as you see above, that was not well received. On the other hand, though, I'm not willing to say (incorrectly) that "equipartition is the equal division of energy kT/2 into all possible modes." It's difficult, isn't it? I'll have to brood on it some more. :)
Yeah, it looked like the article reflected a history on this point. By the way, let me apologize up front if I'm getting any of the theory or history wrong---you're clearly much more familiar with both than I am, so you may have to take some things I say with a grain of salt. Deciding on the level(s?) of the article and its overall structure will probably be the hardest part, and the part you'll get the least help on from anyone else. Unless this article is only going to be a short sub-article for stat mech (in which case I'd do the heavy math right up front at the level of the parent article, keeping everything short and not worrying much about the history, etc.), I think you've got to find a way to introduce things simply, formally but without the full aparatus. Gnixon00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ergodicity is not a problem for the ultraviolet catastrophe, since all modes may be populated, no? Energy can be freely exchanged between the modes and a set of oscillators that emit and absorb the radiation. Equipartition truly breaks down in quantum systems, because the energy spectrum is not continuous. As you see from the calculation, the mean energy in a single oscillator is not always kT/2, as predicted by equipartition.
I guess I meant it in the sense that certain values of energy cannot be exchanged in the quantum regime, so we can't "freely exchange" energy with low-lying states. That's probably an abuse on my part of the concept of ergodicity. After a bit more reading, I'm still not able to express why classical stat mech had an ultraviolet catastrophe but the h*nu hypothesis solved things. Some famous physicist (Einstein, right?) said that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you probably don't understand it. I clearly don't fully understand the classical blackbody derivations---I was always a little hazy on classical stat mech. It's moderately embarrassing to me since I apply Planck's law frequently in my work.
Some more criticism, which I hope is constructive. I'm not that bad at physics, but I find that as I read the article, there are a lot of things I don't immediately follow. I'm sure part of that is because my thermo is rusty (never my best subject), but I also think part of the problem is presentation, particularly how the article relies heavily on certain formalisms without reviewing key concepts and equations. Often when I try to write about things after I've been deep into the calculations, I find myself throwing around a lot of details without getting the big picture across. I think this article has a little of the same problem.
On a related note, even though the equipartition theorem can be expressed more generally, I think it could help to start with the limited case of a quadratic hamiltonian and get the N/2*T result. Probably readers will be most interested in getting to that point, and one can always generalize the theorem later. It would be perfectly fine to say "for quadratic Hamiltonians, equipartition is the equal division of energy kT/2 into all possible modes." Gnixon00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am giving too strong an impression about Einstein. But he did propose E=hν both as the solution for the ultraviolet catastrophe (in 1905) and for the specific heat deviations from the Dulong-Petit law (1907), and his solutions were still not publicly accepted by any physicist in 1911, as described at the Photon article. Other physicists did not want to concede that light itself (or sound itself) had to be quantized; quite reasonably, they preferred the more conservative hypothesis that the emitters/absorbers were constrained somehow to emit energy in quanta.
After a little bit more reading, maybe I just didn't understand his role in pushing the photon concept. Interesting. Gnixon00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
When I have some time, I'll think more about your suggestions, and try to bring the article up to snuff. Thanks for your help! :) Willow22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Any suggestions for what the figures should look like?
Hmm, tough one. For one, maybe just take an arbitrary thermo picture for effect---it might be a little silly, but you could steal the animated picture on Physics. Other than that, maybe consider turning equations into images---you could do the general theorem and the ideal gas law, for example. You could show plots of the blackbody spectrum and perhaps something about the Dulong-Petit law. Those are all kind of random images, but at least they'd give us some eye candy. Gnixon00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Re-review by Gnixon
Hi, Willow. I think the article has taken a huge step up since I last saw it. Nice work!
I'm so glad that you like it! :)
After a very quick re-reading, I have a couple comments:
Great job presenting a simpler version of the theorem first, but I think it's been a little oversimplified. You've gone all the way to the ideal gas example where only the .5mv^2 energy is involved. I'd recommend instead stating the theorem as it applies to all quadratic forms of energy. It's not much harder to understand, and it explains applications like lattice vibrations (.5kx^2) and rotational contributions to gases' specific heats (.5Iw^2). I'd distinguish between the simplest form, (the theorem on quadratic energies) and the simplest application (the ideal gas).
Actually, the kinetic energy argument pertains to all atomic systems, not merely to the ideal gas. That's because the momentum and position are independent variables. I tried to clarify that and also to extrapolate as you suggest to other quadratic potentials. Please let me now if you like it!
Here's how the theorem was introduced in a book I have called "Introductory Statistical Mechanics" by Roger Bowley and Mariana Sanchez:
The equipartition theorem can be stated thus: every degree of freedom of a body which contributes a quadratic term of a coordinate or momentum to the total energy has an average energy of kT/2 and gives a contribution to the heat capacity of k/2.
I'd recommend saying it something like that. By the way, the text continued by briefly discussing the cases of monatomic and diatomic (two rotational, 1 vibrational DOF) gases, which might be useful here, too. Gnixon14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the quote and I'll try to work it in, although it's not perfectly correct. The equipartition of kT/2 requires that the degree of freedom appears only as a quadratic term in the energy. For example, equipartition of kT/2 does not pertain to an anharmonic oscillator that contributes quadratic and higher-order terms to the energy, right? Willow20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course, about the anharmonic example. I think it's sort of a question of how you read the quote---certainly it can be said more clearly, and you seem to have done so. It'd be nice to phrase it without the "only" emphasizing the lack of other terms instead of the presence of the quadratic, but that's just nitpicking, and I haven't thought of a better phrasing.
More substantively, I like having the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution, but it's not exactly a derivation of equipartition. True, if you know the MB distribution, you can show the .5T stuff, but they both fundamentally come from the partition function, and moreover, you can show the .5T without getting the whole M-B distribution. What if instead we derived .5T using the full partition function formalism, but only analyzing a quadratic energy? (I'm thinking 1-d ideal gas, .5mv^2.) It would be obvious how it generalizes for more quadratic terms, and it would be simpler to follow than the fully general form that comes later (and it would prepare the reader for it). Sure, you'd have to use the partition function formalism, but with a link to the relevant article and some artful phrasing, that shouldn't be a problem.
Thanks so much, Gnixon! It's also a pleasure to work with you. :) I added something about the partition function for quadratic energies, but not right at the start; I was afraid of scaring off beginning students! Please let me know what you think of it. More generally, I'm thinking that references should be peppered throughout the article; what do you think? Thanks for your help as always, Willow20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that derivation for quadratic energies. I personally would have put it above the MB (which does have the advantage of being more concrete)---after all, who's going to be confused by a one-line derivation?---but it's not unreasonable to order things your way, and I understand the argument for it. I might fiddle with it just a bit so it mentions how the partition function formalism goes, but already it looks great.
References are always a good idea. Kittel is a standard advanced undergrad/grad thermo textbook. There were a couple others that saved my neck when I was studying for generals, but I can't remember them right this second. There's also that Bowley/Sanchez text. It's too wordy for my taste, but that could mean it has some quotable quotes, and the math isn't too hard. Gnixon11:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
At some point it will probably help to trim the intro so it's more concise, but that's probably the last thing to do. Gnixon11:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Going further with the simple/general divide, I'd recommend putting History immediately after the simple exposition, if possible. Many readers will be interested in the history, but might not get there if they're turned away by the general formulation. Likewise, you might consider trying to put issues of ergodicity and quantum failures above the more general formulation.
Good idea! Did this.
Again, great progress---it's showing promise to become a really fantastic article with your continued good work. I've got the article and this page on my watchlist. Do let me know if I can do anything else to help. Gnixon14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm; that's something I've not heard before. I've always tried to be in the habit of referencing everything, but so long as all of the information in the lead is discussed, and cited, elsewhere in the article, I guess that approach is OK. Mike Peel23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Systems with quadratic energies
It may be worth (briefly) explaining the reason for using the letter "H" earlier on in the article, where it first appears.
Also, explicitly state that after it's used in equation ... grr; this is where I miss equation numbers. (NB: you define it later, but it should be defined where it's first used)
where q is the deviation from equilibrium, such as the spring extension ... and k is ...? It's the spring constant here, rather than Boltzmann's constant, isn't it? (again, you define this several times later, but it should be defined where first used)
Isn't this missing a factor of 1/2 in front of the ? If not, why not?
No, the factor of two comes from the derivative of a quadratic Hamiltonian. As shown in the derivation sections, there's no factor of 1/2 needed.
It may be worth mentioning that in that section, or even better have a "see also" line or something pointing to the derivation for more information at the start rather than the end of the section. Mike Peel23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"where the factor of two" - do you mean a factor of 1/2, not 2, here?
Exactly right!
"By an analogous argument" - is it possible to include a derivation of this, or alternatively link to somewhere else that does?
Included a reference; I could add the full derivation, but the article is already heavy on math, and it is just analogous to the prior derivation. I suspect that anyone who followed the ideal-gas derivation could do the non-ideal case themselves, especially given the answer and the analogous energy equation just above.
Brownian motion
Does all of the content in this section come from a single reference?
The complete derivation is given by Pathria (1972).
Stellar physics
Brief interlude: I can't read "assuming spherical symmetry" without thinking "assuming spherical cow..."
Back to work. Reference(s), please!
Skipping over the derivations for now, as it's late and I'm tired. I'll have a look at them (and the rest of the article again) another day.
Failure due to quantum effects
"which is required in the derivations of the equipartition theorem below" - I think you mean "above", not "below".
Oops, good catch!
In general:
Please choose between using or just for Boltzmann's constant, rather than using both variably. This is especially important here, where you use k to also refer to the spring constant.
I thought that I had only used kB for the Botzmann constant. Please point me to where I dropped the B subscript, thanks! :)
Nice use of figures throughout. However, they're occasionally a bit big. Also, "Figure 1" is currently the second figure on the page, and "Figure 2" is the 9th. Is there a reason for this, or could all of the pictures/figures be numbered?
Figure numbering will get fixed once we settle on all the Figures; I'm thinking of adding a few more, and we may yet re-order the sections.
A couple more (pretty minor) things (I was going to do these myself, but you seem to be doing a rewrite at the moment, so I'll avoid the edit conflicts):
Equations should generally be punctuated as if they were part of the text, e.g. see .
Use of (in German) and (in French) where appropriate in the references would be nice.
Suggestions - As I see, this article really need references. Try to find out where this info came from. Also, add a few more internal links, and an infobox. Besides that, this is a very well-written article! — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel this article could be of Good Article or Feature Article quality if improved. I'm not an expert in what makes a Feature Article, so I've asked for this review so we know the best way to improve it. RMS Oceanic18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Cut the plot to under 700 words.
Create a production section.
Axe trivia.
References need author, title, publisher, date etc.
After seeing a few more of her movies recently and looking at her page on wikipedia, I noticed there weren't many citations, not too many pictures, and no discussion about Mary Astor's article. I was hoping with this peer review some of the experts on this site could help improve the article Mary Astor and hopefully it could become a featured article some day, maybe even going on the Main Page, bringing some well-deserved attention to this great actress. Ilampsurvivor519:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for working on this article about a wonderful actress. I love her movies but knew little about her, so reading this was interesting.
Like many similar articles, there is a general absence of footnotes and citations that would enable the reader to know where a particular statement is coming from. I assume much of it is from her book, etc., but it would be helpful if major points at least were footnoted by specific page references. For article maintenance, if someone comes along and adds a random fact, how can we tell if that fact is supported?
I think the article is a bit overlong due to inclusion of some trivial details that slow down the read. You may want to do a copyedit simply for length, with a goal of cutting 20% of the words (you can pick the words). For example:
Why do we need to know about the "safe deposit box at Security-First National Bank at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue in Hollywood" instead of just a "safe deposit box"?
The reference to "Peter the hermit" is unclear. I would delete the phrase unless it is important. (Their lawyer responded that a daughter could not dictate to her parents where they could or could not live as if they were "Peter the hermit.")
Is it important that the Langhankes then moved to San Fernando from San Mateo?
Regarding page layout, take a look at Myrna Loy for alternatives on how to show the filmography in a quick-reference format.
Thank you very much for your feedback, it is much appreciated! I just went through the entire article trying to improve it using your suggestions. If there's anything else that can be done to improve it please tell. I also had a question. Can I save a picture that I found on another website and use it under fair use rationale if it is a screenshot? Or is it still some kind of copyright infringement of that website?
Also I'm sure you are right about most of it being from the book but I don't have a copy and don't know how to create citations/references. If there is anyone out there who could help with this issue it would be greatly appreciated if you could help.
Another lower league club which both myself and Dweller are trying to raise from the depths of original research and points-of-view toward featured article status. Please contribute as much as possible and provide comments which will help this article get to FA if nominated in the near future. For reference, the article structure is based on both Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C., both current FA's. Thanks in advance for all your help. The Rambling Man16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As an additional note, I realise there are several citation required tags on the article - this peer review should, if possible, aim to remove them or satisfy them! Cheers. The Rambling Man22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oldelpaso's comments
Still plenty of work to be done, but judging by the work you and Dweller have done on several other articles, I'm sure it'll get there.
The lead is a little thin. Perhaps include the years the club moved to Carrow Road and when they first reached the top flight?
Doing...Yes, it does at the moment. The point of the section was to mirror other FA's for clubs which have a stronger presence in popular culture. Unless this can be expanded, e.g. by finding something else interesting about NCFC in pop culture then it ought to be merged elsewhere. The Rambling Man07:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that people will find this interesting and, as TRMan says, this does mirror the structure of other football FAs. It's appropriately low in the article structure. --Dweller16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove minor officals from the current staff section, or consider dropping the section altogether.
The Ownership section merely states a minor quotation from the last couple of months. Is the club a private company or plc? What is the make-up of the shareholdings? Who controlled the club before Delia Smith? How long has Smith been the majority shareholder?
The Colours section is rather jumbled; it start by discussing canary breeding, which would confuse a reader who didn't already know the club nickname. Introduce the nickname before describing its origin. The section is named Colours, so put the part about the colours first. The Crest section should be merged here, unless you intend to expand it greatly. "Famous" in "famous yellow shirts" is a peacock term.
Doing...Agreed, both sections are merged right now, and the peacock term removed. It is likely that the crest section will improve. The Rambling Man16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Supporters section: Is On The Ball, City more important than the supporters themselves? You may wish to consider putting it lower in the section. How big/small is the club's fanbase? How is the fanbase distributed geographically?
The article could use a thorough copyedit. Several sentences use "and" to tie unrelated ideas together. For example, in the first paragraph of the history section "Their first league fixture, against Plymouth, on 28 August 1920, ended in a 1–1 draw, and the club went on to endure a mediocre decade, finishing no higher than eighth but no lower than 18th." could be split into two sentences, and "went on to" removed completely: "Their first league fixture, against Plymouth, on 28 August 1920, ended in a 1–1 draw. The club endured a mediocre decade, finishing no higher than eighth but no lower than 18th. Some useful advice for copyediting is given at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
"Norwich City Football Club (also known as The Canaries, The Yellows, City or (archaic) The Citizens)" Parenthesis in parenthesis isn't pretty. I'd drop The Citizens from the lead and just give it a mention in the fans section.
"Since 1935, they have played their home games at Carrow Road and have a long-standing and fierce rivalry with East Anglian rivals Ipswich Town" I know you don't want two short sentences in a row, but there's no real connection between ground location and rivalry.
"The club was officially reformed on 15 February, 1919; a key figure in the events was a Mr C Watling, father of future club Chairman, Geoffrey Watling" Either tell us why he was a key figure orjust leave it at 1919.
I don't especially like this "made worse by seeing Ipswich promoted the same year as champions." just sounds a bit vague and a bit POV as well - I know a fair number of people who don't really care what the rivals do as long as they beat them in the derby games.
"The 1958–59 season saw Norwich reach the semi-final of the 1958–59 FA Cup as a Third Division side, defeating First Division sides including Tottenham Hotspur and Matt Busby's Manchester United on the way." I'd rephrase this as "The 1958-59 season saw Norwich reach the semi-final of the FA Cup as a Third Division side, defeating (insert number) First Division sides on the way, including Tottenham Hotspur and Matt Busby's Manchester United."
"Norwich were promoted to the Second Division after finishing second to Southampton F.C. in the 1959–60 season which was followed by a fourth place finish in the following season." I'd move the "in the 1959-60 season" to the start of the sentence. I know it mirrors the format of the previous sentence, but I think it reads better. Also, pipe Southampton.
"They played at Wembley Stadium for the first time in 1973, losing the League Cup final 1-0 to Tottenham Hotspur." You've got two "for the first times" in successive sentences, might want to rephrase a bit.
"but notably defeating Bayern Munich of Germany winning 2–1 away and are the only English team to beat Bayern Munich in the Olympic Stadium." Hmm, this needs a rephrase. Don't think you need "notably" or "of Germany". Perhaps split into two sentences at "2-1 away."
I think you've got a bit too much information from here-on in. I've chopped the remainder down and left it as an example on the article talk page.
Doing...I'll read your new example and start to look at changes. I completely agree, however, the article is still suffering from recentism...The Rambling Man16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Crest section needs expanding, but I think you know that. Could be merged with colours section?
Doing...I've merged the sections because until the crest section is filled out, it's simply too short. I think Dweller has some things in mind to add here...The Rambling Man16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"Canary breeding was a popular hobby in Norwich and Norfolk at that time, (contrary to some suggestions, the canaries were not bred for use in mining, they were bred purely as a hobby)." Stick the stuff in parenthesis in a note. Change sentence to "at the time of the club's creation." (presume that's the time you're referring to?)
I'd make this: "Originally, the club was nicknamed the Citizens, and played in light blue and white halved shirts" the opening sentence of the section. Then have the canary stuff and follow up with "by 1907..."
Article has just come out of a major upgrade. A few people have nitpicked on formatting etc (though I'm sure there is more to be done), but not much comment on the content, structure and style yet. I'm also keen to know how understandable people without much of a scientific background find it (so don't be put off by the scary sounding title!)
Cheers. Eve13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a peer review request in order to get feedback on what the article needs to push up it's class....
Murkee11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Shudda's review
I think you should look at some WP:FA and WP:GA quality rugby union team articles for help on getting this to a higher standard, for example Crusaders (rugby). Anyway, specific advise:
Expand the lead as per WP:LEAD (you prob want to do this after having done everything else).
Expand the history section 1968-1994.
Add references to the history section, it's seriously lacking here. (Added fact check template - Murkee)
Convert what external links you have in the text to inline citations.
The stadia section needs a copy-edit. It's currently a bunch of paragraphs that are a sentence or two.
Please add some sort of key, or footnotes to explain the international column of the current squad section. I understand what U19, 7's and A mean, but others may not.
Add a notable players section, but make sure it's de-listed. Maybe discuss how this should be composed on the talk page (see Crusaders (rugby) and All Blacks for inspiration).
Wasps abroad? Whats that about? It should be explained or removed (i don't know what it is about at all). (Edit: Attempt made to address this - Murkee)
Director of rugby - is that the same as coach? This should have an introductory paragraph, and if it is the same as coach should be expanded and completed.
I removed the 'See also' section as it is inappropraite to link to a userbox template. < DONE
I suggest you tidy up the 'Supporters abroad' section as bits of it aren't grammatical. < DONE (I think)
The history section can be expanded, there is a website that I added to the project mainpage called 'Nobok', IIRC they have a history of Wasps article.GordyB15:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Goldman
Expand the section on stadiums
Create a section on colours/logos/kits
Create a section on rivals/traditions/etc (eg. London double headers)
Well... I recently joined WP:FBI, made some edits, and created a page, but the main priority is to get FBI to FA status. I would like to know what we could improve/add to get the article to FA status. BlackBear22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We want to know how RuneScape can be edited in order to attain FA status. It has already passed a GA nom.--Ed21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead section could do with some polishing. The second paragraph, about Gielinor, looks fancrufty. Consider jettisoning the paragraph, moving useful information to the third paragraph (which then becomes the second paragraph). It wouldn't hurt to add another paragraph which summarises the history of the game, reviews it has received and/or its impact on the world/Internet/MMORPG industry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We already have those things you mentioned in your last suggestion. There's a paragraph on it's history and development and one on its reception. The reception paragraph covers the impact on the world, internet, and MMORPG industry, although more info could be added on that. I'll see what I can find. Also, I'll make the changes to the lead section right now.--Ed13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to help bring this article to featured status. Let us know where improvements can be made and what content is lacking. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-29 20:00Z
Apart from some recent disputes over the lead, which have now been practically resolved, the article is fine. It reads well, is thorough, contains very good images and is exceptionally well referenced. It only needs to be included in a few more categories, and it's ready.--Orthologist21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added more categories, including the ones that contain Category:Atheism, and the ones that are used on the featured German Misplaced Pages article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-30 03:19Z
A very well-done article
Overall I would say it is a very good article. It is well-referenced and makes a good read.
It is mostly about atheism from the point of view of Western religion and tends to overgeneralize when discussing Eastern religions. The article seems to have a limited awareness of the broad diversity of views that exist within Buddhism regarding theism. The notion of all Buddhists being atheists is uncritically accepted by the article, and while this is true for some Buddhists it is not true for all. There are in fact many Buddhist sects that place great importance on the role of various deities. Buddhism in Japan is not the same phenomenon as Buddhism at the mall in the United States.
There was also a lumping together of Hinduism with Buddhism that did not seem to appreciate the differences between them. Hinduism is a profoundly theistic religion, and while there are some atheistic schools, these are a very small minority. The point is that Hinduism is able to accept both theistic and atheistic conceptions as valid spiritual positions.
I rarely say this about Misplaced Pages articles, but I would say that the section on References is too long. I find specific citations in footnotes to be invaluable, but a long list of general texts that are not specifically cited in the article is less helpful than a short list of the ten best books on the subject to help the reader know what to buy at Amazon if they want to learn more. Can a short reading list be pruned from the forest of general articles? If an article appears in a footnote, does it also need to be cited in the References? Buddhipriya03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidence of very serious sourcing problems here, although I assume good faith and sincerely recognize the efforts of the editors involved to create a good article. First, a cited Guardian articles reads, in part, "Mr Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate inter preters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." The current Misplaced Pages article reads, "Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate interpreters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." It then gives a reference, but does not put the direct quotes in quotation marks, nor is it the correct reference, which is to the article cited ninth, not the article cited eighth. ...The next citation I looked at showed me that the Misplaced Pages article reads, "the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point." The source article reads "the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, and showed him three murder-scene photos to illustrate their point." Again, this is cited, but not put in quotes; this one is an example of inappropriate paraphrasing. I did not delve further into the sources after finding these problems on my first run-through, but this is enough to tell me that the whole text of the article needs to be checked against its sources for similar problems. Dekimasuよ!11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a good article that could probably make it to an A class with a little work. The article is heavy on citations but suffers from some problems that I don't know how to fix without some advice. For example, a large part of the introduction is taken up by a discussion of the name of the group. The article is not heavily edited anymore, was never edited by much more than a handful of Peruvianist, and could greatly benefit from peer review. --Descendall07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Close to nominating this at FAC. Promoted to GA this month, upgraded to A-class within schools only hours ago. I'm looking for a few feutral people to help me determine how close it is. PhoenixTwo03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 metre, use 15 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15 metre.
Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.
There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), program (A) (British: programme).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Do not wikilink single years. Only date-month-year.
Inline citations go straight after the punctuation mark; not before.
"Personal life" is stubby. If you cannot expand it, merge it with "Early life".
"Within days he was offered a job back at the Seattle Times." Avoid stubby paragraphs like this one. Merge or expand.
"At the Seattle Times Watson continued to write his column in the style that had made him Seattle's best known newspaper columnist." This should definitely be cited.
"Accomplishments" and "Death" are also stubby. I think the last one should be merged. Could you enrich "Accomplisments"? You could also possibly merge it with "Awards".
"See also" goes before "Notes". You could try to incorporate its links within the text and get rid of it.
Done a lot of work on this in the last few mounths. There is talk of make this a FAC. I think it's best to give it a PR first. Buc08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-align the text to standard (left), rather than 'justified'. I think most FA have their text aligned to the left which looks so much better than justified text.
Could the "Early years" section be expanded to more than two paragraphs?
The article is quite long, could it be split up, perhaps a separate article could be created for his career with the Ferrari team?
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I hope this article can become a Good Article. I am aware that there are some grammar mistakes in it, but I want to know if it is well done overall. Thank you.Dalobuca15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dalobuca. The lead should be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs, and contain a summary of all the main points in the article. That would be a good area to begin focusing on.-- Zleitzen05:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"he stands out as a precursor...". When I hear the word "precursor" I want to know of what this person was a precursor?
"Even though Espejo did not have original ideas". What does this mean? How do we define original ideas and in connection with what? And if he did not have original ideas how come and he was important?
"he learned "by experience, which cannot be known without studying with pen in hand."". I think that per WP:MoS italics are not recommended in quotes.
"(in order to practice as a lawyer, he studied under the direction of Dr. Ramón Yépez from 1780 to 1793). On November 28, 1772. Per WP:MoS 1780 and 1793 should not be wikilinked. The full date is well-linked. Check all your dates in the article, and fix them.
"He became a prominent scientific investigator, philosopher, journalist, and writer." Why is this repetition necessary in "Early years"?
"Although no surviving posters have been found, there is evidence that he wrote them, including the remarks Espejo made about them in his works." "The remarks etc." refers to "evidence"?
"by the name of El nuevo Luciano de Quito o Despertador de los ingenios quiteños en nueve conversaciones eruditas para el estímulo de la literatura" "Marco Porcio Catón o Memorias para la impugnación del nuevo Luciano de Quito" "Reflexiones acerca de un método para preservar a los pueblos de las viruelas", "Defensa de los curas de Riobamba". In English?
"Due to this behaviour, by 1783 he was labelled as "restive and subversive", and was later designated head physician for the scientific expedition that Francisco de Requena was about to begin headed for the Pará and Marañon rivers to set the limits of the Royal Audience." It is recommended to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
"Espejo made use of this chance and created his most complete and better written work". According to whom?
Try to have at least one citation in all your paragraphs.
"Instead of recognition, Espejo gained more enemies". Why?
"In 1790 Espejo returned to Quito to promote the "Sociedad Patriótica"". What is that? Tell us just two-three more words about it.
"Because of his ideas, he was imprisoned". Blur. Who accused him? On what grounds? How was his imprisonment decided?
"By the interpretation of his manuscripts, it can be inferred that Eugenio Espejo considered education as the main way for popular development." Sources? Otherwise, it is original research.
"Amazing is in fact his understanding of science." WP:POV
"When he was arrested, people rumored that his detention was caused because of his support of the "impieties" of the French Revolution." Cite.
"Eugenio Espejo could be regarded as a polymath, as he was a notable scientist, journalist, satirist and theologian." How many times have I read that already?!
"Views on Education" is completely uncited.
The whole "Thoughts" section is tagged for copy-editing etc. You can find copy-editors here.
"Clearly written and well conceived". Especially well conceived could again be regarded as POV.
"Once again, this work proved its author's deep knowledge of this religious subject and its situation in the 18th century, as well as his capability to deal with such a complicated matter." Unsourced.
"Nevertheless, Espejo can be considered a deeply religious man." Any scholarly research supporting that. Where is this assertion based? You announce it as a conclusion in text without supporting it.
"Views on Economics" and "Legacy" are also uncited.
"Espejo’s defense, well prepared and documented". I am afraid that "well-prepared and documented" is again POV.
Check all your inline citations and notes. They should be after punctuation mark always.
"Overcoming racial discrimination, he graduated from medical school on July 10, 1767, and shortly after in jurisprudence and canon law (in order to practice as a lawyer, he studied under the direction of Dr. Ramón Yépez from 1780 to 1793). On November 28, 1772, he was authorized to practice medicine in Quito." Personally, I try not to have uncited paragraphs; so, IMO, you should also cite even short paragraphs like this one.
"However, his desire to read everything without discrimination and criteria sometimes led him to irreflexive and precipitate judgments." Such as? Maybe a bit vague.
"Thought" is still tagged for copy-editing. Don't you go in GAC or FAC with such tags in your article. Fix the relevant issues first!
In "Legacy" I read mostly about his ideas. I think the goal in such a section is to learn (if and) how these ideas influenced his next generations. In a few words: Why was Espejo important for the generations after him? Did he have any impact?
The article is, in general, much improved. I think that GAC should be the next step, after you have the article assessed and after you get rid of the tags.--Yannismarou13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have followed almost every recommendation to improve the article, except for two: I have cited almost every paragraph, but there are some paragraphs (seven, to be precise) that I think can be let alone without citations, as most of them come from the same source: Philip Astuto's book. I am also aware that the article is still tagged for copy-editing, but the League of Copyeditors seems to be quite busy at the moment, so I will have to be patient for a while. Please let me know what do you think about my corrections. Dalobuca01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please give any suggestions you have which can help raise the importance level and quality scale, even if you don't understand Persian or like the team.Nokhodi07:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
JHMM13
Here are a few places to start:
Misplaced Pages is perhaps not a repository for links, but it is indeed a large repository for featured soccer-related articles. Check out Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Everton F.C., IFK Göteborg, Manchester City F.C., and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. which are all featured articles. Here you should get a bunch of good ideas for layout and other such things. An article you can use that currently has an open FAC is Ipswich Town F.C.. Since it is about to pass, there you can see what it takes to pass the latest FA criteria.
You need to find mostly English sources for the English Misplaced Pages. People here need to be able to verify the information supplied. You can have some Persian links to info you can't find in English, but it needs to be mostly in English if you can. Doing...
The article needs many more references. Doing...
Check to see if it's a naming convention to call a football club an F.C. instead of FC. Done
Lots and lots of red links. While you're finding information for this article, I'm sure you can find some useful info for the people to whom you link. Done
You neem to come up with a better name for the section titled "1979-89." Done
The article needs a (read: several) heavy copyedit (read: copyedits) because there are parts that seem to be written by a non-native English speaker. Doing...
That's all I can come up with now. Try to flesh things out and summarize them at the same time. The best way you can raise the quality of this article is by taking it under your wing and trying to get everything right without any POV-pushing (a difficult thing to do for a sports team, admittedly). JHMM1308:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The Rambling Man
Hi there. Knowing nothing about this club is probably a good place for me to start peer reviewing this article! As JHMM13 said above, Ipswich Town F.C. did indeed make it to featured status so is a useful guide to what ought to achieve community consensus to promote to FA. Anyway, my specific comments:
The article has no references at all. When adding these, pay heed to WP:FOOT.
Is it FC or F.C.? This peer review heading redirects to F.C. but it's FC in the infobox. Done
Four short paragraphs in the lead, could do with merging or expanding, per WP:LEAD. Done
History is probably broken up under too many sub-headings. Done
Several elements of familiarity in the prose ("...the boss was a big fan...", "1990s were a dream decade...") which need to be toned down or cited as quotations.
With football seasons, n-dash is used i.e. not 1995-96, use 1995–96, as per WP:DASH. Done
As above, some terms I'm not familiar with, e.g. until I clicked on it, I did know Pas was another club - I think they could be introduced.
What's happened to the rest of the club season-by-season, since the honours go back to 1973? Probably not worth the season-by-season stuff, if need be, create a sub-article to contain all the records of the club. Done
Squad changes - not required, if anything truly significant has happened then it should either be in the history section, or a sub-page which is more detailed. Done
Famous players - famous to whom? I'm afraid to say that I'm familiar with only one or two. Yet again, a sub-page could be used. What criteria are you applying to them being famous? Some don't have an article. Done
Feel free to take all my comments with a pinch of salt, hopefully some of them will be of use to you. Don't hesitate to let me know if I can help clarify anything. All the best The Rambling Man17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is pretty long. It's the product of a large amount of hard work, esp. by Maowang and myself, but also by countless others. It is currently a GA nominee and we hope to send it to FAC after that...--Ling.Nut03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
JHMM13
This is a great article, and I commend you for it. My suggestions:
I must admit that I cannot sit through all of it and that is going to be a problem at FAC, I'm sure of it. There are some sections with 7 full paragraphs that make this drag on for a long time. You might want to try to take sections that are important enough and bring that over to another article that covers the topic fully while the section in this article can be brought to more of a summarization.
I'm not sure if it's required at FAC yet, but you'll be saving yourself and everyone else a lot of trouble by switching over to footnote referencing. This will also make the main section of your shorter, flow better, and be less cluttered. I can't think of an article recently that has been promoted to FA status using Harvard referencing. (p.s. it's not hard to switch over!)
Having a lot of red links in your article is not too fashionable over at FAC, but it's not required. Just a suggestion to create those articles instead of unlinking them.
That's the best I can tell you. I'm not saying that it should be shorter because the subject is not worthy of a long article, but in the interest of user attention spans, we should try to keep things to a relative minimum that goes into a reasonable amount of detail without overdoing it. Review your article here and ask yourself if someone is absolutely necessary to note in the article or if the user can find said semantics in the book that is referenced. JHMM1308:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Bulleted lists might get hammered at FAC; try integrating them into the prose if possible.
The images are somewhat large; 200-250px might be better.
Harvard referencing is uncommon on Misplaced Pages, since it's easy to jump right to the sources. People might disagree with this referencing style at FAC.
The prose is nice IMO, but it needs a run-through by two or three editors to remove lingering issues. Like I said, I'm somewhat backlogged; I don't know if I can help in that department.
"There is also recorded oral histories that recall some Plains aborigines were sometimes captured and killed by highlands tribes while relocating through the mountains (see the Atayal narrative "Headhunting" in the Formosan Language Archive)." This includes an external jump which should probably be reformatted as a citation. -Fsotrain00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has improved a lot since the last peer review and its well on its way to being a featured article. The lists have been removed, it relates to the real world, there is now a picture of the city, it broadly covers the subject, etc. There may be a few problems left with this article, such as the fact that most of the images do not have fair use rationales and that the table of contents is too long. Any suggestions on how to improve the article further would be appreciated. Squirepants10101:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's far too in universe - it's not enough to just say 'such and such is a fictional...' and then go on in the rest of the article treating it as if it's real. All of your citations are to the show itself - did the creators of the show ever discuss Bikini Bottom in interviews etc.? -Malkinann04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the best advice I can give you without having read the article is to find an album article that became an FA recently and figure out what they did to get it in. At first glance, I'm not a gigantic fan of the section layouts. I don't know what other album articles do, but I think they might put the track listings somewhere else. Check up and do write what you find out here so I can see it and comment further. Thanks, JHMM1303:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems the other album FAs have the tracklisting near or at the end of the article. I could try and place it there, and have the actual article section start off with "About the Songs." - MajorB<talk><contribs> - 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
After seeing a few more of her movies recently and looking at her page on wikipedia, I noticed there weren't many citations, not too many pictures, and not much discussion about Mary Astor's article. I was hoping with this peer review some of the experts on this site could help improve the article Mary Astor and hopefully it could become a featured article some day, maybe even going on the Main Page, bringing some well-deserved attention to this great actress. Ilampsurvivor523:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Put the objective before the subjective, ie move the director's opinion of her downward in the intro, and the reasons for her fame up. She is objectively famous for Maltese Falcon; readers may or may not agree with some guy's view of her acting ability (with all due respect). Kaisershatner19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:MoS you shouldn't wikilink single years (1920); only full dates (date-month-year).
"She was named one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars in 1926, along with Mary Brian, Dolores Costello, Joan Crawford, Dolores Del Rio, Janet Gaynor, and Fay Wray." You have many stubby sentences like this one. You should avoid them, because they make the prose listy. Merge or expand.
"Astor had four husbands, director Kenneth Hawks (married February 26, 1928-his death 1930); physician and surgeon Franklyn Thorpe (married June 29, 1931-divorced 1936); insurance salesman Manuel del Campo (married February 1936-divorced 1941); and stockbroker Thomas Wheelock (married December 25, 1945-divorced 1955)." I don't know if this information is placed in the right plave. You are in mid 30s and you speak about 1955. Put the info in the right section or another alternative is to create a seperate "Personal life" section.
"Her daughter was born in June in Honolulu, her name being a combination of the names of her parents. Her middle name, Hauoli, means "To sing with joy." IMO the repetitive prose here is not nice. In general, the prose could be better improved and get more encyclopedis. Many choppy phrasings; many "she did this" "she did that". You could combine sentences together, making the syntax nicer and the flow of the prose better.
"He said that if she would let him take their daughter, Marylyn, she could have her back after six months to keep for six months. She believed that later on she could get custody of Marylyn and avoid bad publicity." Again the prose could be better here and elsewhere. After what he said, we go to what she believed, without telling us is she finally gave the child?! We imagine she did but ... Wouldn't be nicer if the last sentence was like that: "Astor agreed with his proposal, because she believed that ..."
"Fortunately, the scandal caused no harm". "Fortunately" is POV.
This is a kind of small, out-of-the way article that I think is start-class and could make it to B-class pretty easily. It seems like a good choice to 1) get comfortable with the project's peer review tools, 2) do a useful, easy collaboration. Cheers. Haus4221:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
JHMM13
Good choice, Haus! It looks like it could be an interesting read that does need some work, though. There are some basic things that you could do to really get this article going that might be reall interesting for you as well:
Head down to your local library and find a good bunch of books on the subject or if you're not feeling up for a drive, check out Amazon.com or BN.com for passage planning books or books on naval navigation. From there it's all obtaining knowledge and citing exactly where you got that knowledge.
Keep separate Notes and References sections like you might find at the bottom of this page: Domenico Selvo.
Put the images in places where they do not interfere with the text and provide maximum utility. Check out Misplaced Pages:Images, particularly the section of image choice and placement.
Really cover the topic thoroughly, but keep it in accordance with the fact that this is an encyclopedia. It is not a secondary source that details precisely what one must do to plan passages, but it should give a moderate amount of detail that is summarized and cited for verifiability.
Think about renaming the sections after you've gathered more information on the topic. Right now they're a bit vague and require a bit of explanation. Check out Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout.
When you're all finished and think it's ready for GA or something else, please submit it back here or at some other review area and we'll take another look at it! JHMM1303:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your feedback! I wasn't aware that enabling the project's peer-review system actually submitted the article for Misplaced Pages-wide peer review. That said, your comments are very helpful. This (very new) project has over 100 articles and nothing particularly close to a GA. Hopefully, with feedback like this, we will be able to start moving articles from "start" to "b" more effectively. Haus4214:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have worked on this article and I hope I have improved it from a pretty bad version when I first found it to right now where it is more informative. I am not sure whether it has the potential to ever become a featured article, but I just want to know in which areas it can be improved. Thanks in advance --Rayis19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Still needs work. Right now it is not higher than start class ( though a good start article). Some remarks:
Citation 1 is not properly formatted (use Template:cite web or Template:cite news). And maybe the citation should be at the end of the sentence.
"He has been described as "one of Iran’s student leaders". He is currently based in Washington, DC." Personally, I try to avoid that short sentences in the lead; they make the prose choppy. Try to find a way to better combine sentences, so as the prose to flow better.
"Before his arrival in U.S in 2005, he had been imprisoned in Iran 19 times, with his first experience at the age of 17." Per MoS you should avoid one-sentence paragraphs like this one. They are not good for the flow of the prose.
Anything about his family background? You go straight away to the improsonement, but the reader of an encyclopedic article wants to have a complete biography. Tis is not just a news report.
""About military efforts: No one wants war, neither we nor you. Our greatest efforts have been focusing on own people and forces within our boundaries, without war, to uproot the zealot Mullahs governing our country and replace them with a secular, democratic government which respects human rights and freedom". Why you bold here? This is not recommended.
"he was one of the first of the democratic opposition in Iran to call for a constitutional referendum." You repeat the exact wording from the lead.
In "See also" section you repeat articles already linked within the text.
It is not clear in the article how he makes his living in US right now. His whereabouts? He works as a journalist? If yes, where?
I think the article is now up to B-Class status. Consequently the demands and the challenges are now bigger. Within this spirit, these are my remarks:
If I was the writer of the article, I would definitely go for an external copy-editing by a native English speaker (unfortunately for this case, I am not). Maybe the League of the copy-editors could be helpful. There are obvious prose deficiences. See for instance, the lead: "He is known for his political activism and has been described as one of Iran’s student leaders. He is currently based in Washington, DC. He was one of the first of the democratic opposition in Iran to call for a constitutional referendum to rescind the powers of the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians. Fakhravar is the founder of the Iranian Freedom Movement (In Persian: Jonbeshe Azadye Iranian). He is also the ..." Prose which: 1) is repetitive (repeats the same forms of expression; no variety), and 2) choppy (meaning too short sentences).
It is not nice to have more than one citation in a row. You can combine them. Check for instance Tourette syndrome or Actions along the Matanikau for ways to combine citations.
Nice you added a "Background and student life" section. Whatever more you can add is welcome, so that the section does not look stubby.
"Later he started his higher". Personally, I never start new section with "he". I would say: "Later Fakhravar started his higher", but again this may be a personal preference.
"Later he started his higher education at the University of Medical Sciences in Urmia, where he was elected as the chairman to the student government body of the university in 1994." This could maybe go to the previous section as well I think.
Per WP:MoS don't have a gap between the inline citation and the punctuation mark. I fixed that in the lead, but I think it is all over the place.
"He claims to have had a prominent role ..." Why you say he claims? Are there other sources rejecting his "prominent role"? Aren't there any "objective" reports?
"After an argument with the judge, he was beaten in front of the court by the judge Seyyed Madjid Hosseinian, which resulted in him sustaining heavy knee injuries and a broken leg before being transferred to the Qasr prison. " Try not to interrupt the phrases with citations. Do it only if you feel it is necessary; otherwise, put them at the end of the sentence combining them. Some reviewers (in FA especially) do not like sentences to be frequently interrupted with inline citations.
I'm nominating this article as a test of the system, and also because he was a really cool guy. Haus4218:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
JHMM13
As I stated in your other article up for peer review, a good article starts at the library. You need to start writing a lot more verifiable information regarding this person before we can really slice and dice the article. Please refer to the many featured articles on Misplaced Pages that are biographies. JHMM1308:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your time JHMM13. It wasn't clear to me that the project's peer review functionality put the page up for Misplaced Pages-wide peer review. Given this information, and with apologies, I withdraw this article from consideration. Haus4211:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. It's not your fault. I hope to see this article on the "real" peer review soon on its way to GA or FA. That's a challenge ;-D JHMM1319:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get some feedback to see what more can be done with this article. Specifically, I would like to know if the article needs more citations (and if so, what pieces of information need to be cited), whether or not some of the information is crufty (if only knitters would really care about some of the information), and whether the images are helpful in conveying the information in the article. All other critiques are appreciated, too. Thanks! – Dok16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've completed a radical expansion of this article from a stub. It was rated "Start" by an admin; since then I've added the infobox w/ photo, plus subsection headings & a bit of miscellaneous formatting & cleanup, but I'm stuck on how to further improve it. I left out some addtional material -- such as a section of musico-philosophical quotes from Spano -- as possibly unencyclopedic overkill. It's pretty exhaustively sourced, I think -- maybe overly so? the multiple footnotes do kind of break up the text, but I wanted to be careful. GA or FA status would certainly be cool. Any comments or suggestions would be hugely appreciated. Thx --Turangalila (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I fixed a few spelling mistakes, also I am not sure about the "--"s, is that standard? overall an informative article and good job. The lead could probably be worded a little bit better --Rayis12:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry -- I'm not sure what bit you mean when you mention: "--"s. Are you referring to orphaned letters "s", as in "]'s Ring Cycle"? Or do you mean the double-hyphens themselves? On the latter I'm not sure if there's a standard; I'm in the habit of using them as a sub for the long dash, but maybe I should replace them w/ Unicode dashes? --Turangalila (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing I noticed off the bat is the four quotes in the lead section. The quotes should be moved to a new section, possibly in a recognition section. See also Lead section. Your concern about over-referencing is understandable. I noticed a sentence with five references and many that are double referenced, which does seem a bit excessive. That only happens for controversial statements, but now that the citations are in, I see no reason to remove them. The Recording and Affiliation sections are lists that take up almost as much space as the other content. I'm not quite sure what to do there...
Lastly, I think it would be great if you could put up 30 sec samples of his work like in Bradley Joseph. I think this could easily be a Good Article and maybe a Featured Article in the future.
This is a concise, informative article. Nice work. Here are my suggestions.
The quotations in the lead should be included in the article and the reader should be told in the text of the article who is saying them. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. WP:LEAD
He is regarded as an advocate of new music - you link to "contemporary classical music" so why not say that Spano is an advocate of emerging classical composers or contemporary classical music? I found "new music" vague.
lead any of the most prominent (and richest) orchestras - I would delete "richest" - it seems oddly placed and prominence requires wealth in the classical music world.
The younger Spano began making music early - The tone here is rather cheesy.
After high school he went to Ohio to study at the Oberlin Conservatory - how about emphasizing the conservatory? "After high school, he went to study at the Oberlin Conservatory in , Ohio"
After high school he went to Ohio to study at the Oberlin Conservatory, where he would earn a degree in piano performance, while also pursuing the violin and composition and studying conducting with Robert Baustian. - run-on sentence
From 1993 until 1996 he travelled the world nonstop - tone is colloquial
while also exploring the use of visual elements to augment (or fundamentally alter) the standard orchestra-concert experience - could you provide an example?
In 2002, Spano announced his intention to step down from the Music Director position in Brooklyn at the end of the 2003-04 season, remaining as an advisor, and then principal guest conductor, until 2007. - a bit awkwardly worded
By then, Spano was ensconced in his new position, as Music Director of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. - I love the word "ensconced," but I am not entirely sure it is the best choice here.
After some troubled years for the orchestra in the 1990's, and despite his would-be gala debut as Music Director being marred by the tragedies of 9/11 just four days earlier, Spano's tenure has been judged by most to be a lift to the orchestra's spirits, as well as its artistic standards, which are generally seen as having improved. - awkwardly worded
I wonder if you could separate the "Awards" from the "Recordings" or if you could somehow make the "Recordings" section easier to read. Right now, the awards are buried amongst the publication information.
I noticed that most of your sources are from major newspaper like the New York Times; that is good, but what about the publications that are for the classical music world? Certainly they have talked about Spano? What about Gramophone, for example?
You say in your comments above that you have left out Spano's philosophy of music, but I would definitely include that. Misplaced Pages is more expansive than most encyclopedias and since Spano is a conductor, his philosophy of music is certainly relevant to his "notability."
You might also think about including more pictures. Are there free or fair use images of him conducting, for example?
If you want to go for FA, you should probably fix the red links either by de-linking or creating stub pages for them.
This article needs a very brief copyedit. There are tiny problems with commas and other minor writing problems. Awadewit16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is the current subject of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject collaboration. I expanded it from a stub to where it is now and am looking forward to broad based input here. Trying for GA and then FA, eventually. What is the article missing? Feel free to assess for NPOV and if you feel like it, the article surely needs a copy edit or two by those new to it. Thanks in advance and I will respond to reviews here, as well. IvoShandor09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
JHMM13
Here are my suggestions:
Done <Figure out what's going on in that lead. You should keep the TOC where it automatically is so that the average user isn't confused. As it is, it conflicts for space with that image and makes the page look cluttered from the start. IvoShandor19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
DoneFix up that citation needed spot. On that note, read through the article and try to find every place you think you made a claim that needs to be backed up. If you are very conservative in your judgment, I think you'll get it right. As it stands, the referencing seems pretty good.
Not doneDouble check to see if you need to be so specific in some sections (particularly incentives and nominations.
Thank you. Will take a look. I don't see the white space or how the lead is confusing but I will consult with others, as this is a current project collaboration.
As for the refs I think that "anything likely to be challenged" has been suffciently referenced, so I am not sure where we could add more, I don't want to overdo it as I don't think every single fact requires inline citation. Thanks again and we will get to work on your suggestions asap. : )
IvoShandor19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! The article is very well-referenced, but that was just sort of a catch-all line I send out there to get people to self-check themselves before FAC shreds it :-/. New suggestions:
DoneI think you might find some hawks at FAC who wish to see the lead trimmed down maybe a touch (I'm talking maybe two sentences shorter). I would be among that group as right now the lead isn't a great "introduction" to the world of NRHP. It seems just a bit too detailed for me. Try to get some of the greater issues regarding NRHP in there and reserve the details for later in the article. This is, of course, at your discretion since I don't know exactly what is detailed and what is not, but right now it's hard for me (maybe not everyone) to be truly captured by the lead. --IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
DoneAnother suggestion for you is to try to get some images in your article! An article with the three images you've chosen will have a tough time being approved for FA status. You've got such a plethora of possible images to choose from (so many historic places!). Think of a few that were significant and fit the article's content to help illustrate it a bit better. --IvoShandor11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This has torn me. We have tons of NRHP places images, but I just wish there was a better way to illustrate this article. That just seems, so, cliche. I don't know. IvoShandor20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
DoneFor quotes you may want to use the template you can find here. It might create an interesting look to the article and single out any important primary sources that you want singled out (like 49 USC 303).
DoneIs there an emblem or seal for the National Register of Historic Places? That would be a much better lead picture than the one you currently have which, at first glance, could be slightly confusing to the casual reader who does not understand the subject.
I have sent an email to find out if they do indeed have a seal along with a request for an image of it if it does exist. Soon we will know. IvoShandor07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Email response confirms there is no seal, official or otherwise, a follow up revealed that there are no current plans to adopt one. IvoShandor16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"As of 2007, the list includes more than 80,000 entries, including many icons of American culture, history, engineering, and architecture." The wording of this sentence could be improved by not having two "include"s.
DoneOK I found a part that is confusing me in the lead. "As of 1998, there were over one million buildings, sites and structures listed on the Register - including historic districts and individually listed buildings - and each year an additional 30,000 are added." Why talk about as of 1998? How were there over one million entries in 1998 when there are 80,000 now? --IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I am working on this problem, as it seems no one really knows anything about specific numbers. However, the 1,000,000 number includes those buildings listed as contributing properties in historic districts where as the 80,000 would just include the one listing for the whole district.IvoShandor20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please check this now, any suggestions would help. These numbers are true, just confusing. One million refers to not only the individual listings, historic districts (just the district; not its buildings), buildings, sites and other indivdual lsitings, but also to the member properties of the thousands of federal historic districts. Check it now and let me know. IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Done"Nominating a property to the Register, which can be done by anyone, is a process which involves property owners, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), local historical organizations and others related to the field of historic preservation." Here's an example from the lead that illustrates what I'm talking about. It seems to me that you're going into far too much detail and this whole section could have the fat trimmed off it. Talk with your fellow collaborators and decide just how you want to do this. Also note the proper conjugation of "to involve." --IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
DoneFigure out what you want to do with the red links in the history section. If they're worthy of their own articles, create them. If not, unlink them.
They are, I would say. They will be written as part of the collaboration, I wouldn't take it to FAC with red links, no worries. : ) IvoShandor20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not doneThoroughly copyedit this article for grammar, typos, and, most importantly, for flow. Here's an example of some of these problem areas:
Done"In February 1983, the two assistant directorates, created in 1973, were merged to promote efficiency and recognize that the cultural resource programs are both directorates were interdependent." This sentence reads a bit bureaucratically, apart from the fact that there is a verb issue and you need that comma after 1983. To help you un-bureaucrat it, I'll give you some suggestions. Try to avoid set-asides like "created in 1973." It confuses the reader after you've just given another date which is more important. If you're going to use the term cultural resource programs (which sounds kind of heavy-handed as is), try to really explain it above where you first mention it instead of just giving examples of what they are. Try at all times to make it very readable to the common dolt such as myself. If these are industry terms that must be used, try your best to define them briefly but thoroughly before you use them consistently. In other words, see the article from the point of view of someone who hasn't a bloody clue what the hell you're talking about. ;-D
I reworked this, any other problem areas you see, I am far too wedded to this article to effectively copyedit it, I plan to utilize the League of Copyeditors. IvoShandor04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Check this out, I made some tweaks in this article (not the main one yet, will that be required for FAC too?) IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
DoneWhat's the short name for the Register? Is it the Register or the National Register? Pick one and stick to it. --IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
DoneTry to layout the sections a little better. Perhaps you want to separate the incentives section from the listed properties section or something. Right now, I don't know at first glance what you mean by incentives, which is an important consideration considering it's in the TOC. Another solution could be using more descriptive words like "Incentives for joining," but please consult with your fellow collaborators first. I am not an expert on the subject and you should take my suggestions as a pointing in something that might be generally considered the right direction...it's certainly not a detailed road map.
DoneI think you should dedicate a whole section to the nominations process with separate subsections detailing it to some degree. You could also find some other solution that might include a table or picture or something of that sort that would illustrate the criteria for nomination. As it stands, I think the nominations section is too long and doesn't seem a proper subsection of "listed properties." Also think about renaming it to "nomination process."
DoneThink about renaming the protections section as well to something that is less vague.
DoneRename the section "academic criticism" to "criticism" and rework the thing to make it flow more smoothly. I'm specifically talking about the first sentence and how it fits into the rest of the section.
Done (kinda)You might do yourself a favor by keeping separate notes and references sections like you can find here.
On the issue of the image, it is a difficult one to address. At the same time, though, it still remains difficult for an article with few images in it to get nominated, especially if it's on a subject that is not obscure. Do some digging and see if you can perhaps find "the first NRHP place or some other milestone place. Something that is representative of the whole...like maybe the White House if it is one or Mt. Rushmore. Something really iconic to illustrate one end of the spectrum and then maybe like...I dunno...the rock upon which the Secretary of the Treasury to Grover Cleveland once ate lunch. Something more obscure. These are just ideas. Yours will probably be better. JHMM1322:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha. The rock that Grover Cleveland ate lunch on...hahaha. Yeah, I like those ideas though. I appreciate this, as this collaboration has been somewhat of a solo effort thus far. IvoShandor10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Still working here, but I did do some tweaks and some reorganization. I added a collage I made, though, admittedly, it isn't that great. I am still turning some ideas over in my head. The problem with "the first" listed place is that the first listing were en masse, all of the National Historic Landmarks were added at once, in 1966. IvoShandor06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I kind of like that collage! That's a good way to illustrate it that I hadn't thought about. If you think you can improve upon it...go ahead, but I like this one. Several other things:
Thanks, I just thought it could be more evened up but my photoshop skills are subpar, maybe I can get some help with this, will that be counted against me at FAC you think? 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Not done??? The expansion to the lead is impressive, but try to slice off maybe two sentences so it isn't so imposing. I see that you're still rewriting it, but just as a reminder, the 80,000/30,000/1,000,000 thing still confuses me, so don't forget about it. Also, pull that sentence into the first paragraph and start paragraph 2 with "for most of its history."
Not done and DoneTry the best you can to read through the whole thing again and find sentences that might not logically flow. I don't at the moment have time to read through it all and copyedit, but an example from the lead that could be improved is: "Its goals are to coordinate and help property owners and groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation identify and protect historic sites in the United States." If we break down the two verbs you use here, the sentence with just "to help prop owners...identify and protect etc." makes sense, but with "to coordinate prop owners...identify and protect" doesn't. I know what you're saying, but it seems like different clauses are overlapping. Try to separate them into something like, "Its goals are to coordinate property owners and groups such as the NTHP and help them identify and protect historic sites in the US." See what I mean?
Not done and Done Try also to get rid of/reword sentences like this: "The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was not the only piece of important legislation to pass that year." We can't decide what legislation is important or not...multiple instances of sentences like that would get an FA an oppose, I think.
Not done I know it's being vague, but try to get rid of redundancy here and there. Check this page out. It will help you run another copyedit eliminating unnecessary words. An example of this might be: "While Section 106 does not explicitly mandate that any federal agency head listen to the advice of the ACHP it is practically "awkward" to rebut their advice..." Also, this is a good example of a place where you should say ""awkward" according to the ____." I think it's a strong enough word that you have to cite it in the prose as well as the citation at the end of the sentence.
After I am all done I am usually pretty good at catching these, not always, but I will be going to the League of Copyeditors as well as having other project members do some copyediting. IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Done I like the refs in total so far. I can't find anything wrong with any of the sources you've listed and there's pretty good coverage throughout the article. You may want to tighten up the format on the last three refs in the References and further reading section, though. The second and fourth I don't get and the third lacks and ISBN or LCCN. I could be wrong about these...I'm just calling your attention to it.
Any idea where I can find the ISBN or LCCN, didn't see it on the contents page of the online version I linked. IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Done Try to create the articles for the red links. This wouldn't kill an FAC, but having blue links throughout makes it look more professional, IMO.
Done One-sentence paragraphs, on the other hand, will kill an FAC. Reevaluate those sentences and either incorporate them into the above or below paragraph or get rid of them.
You asked me if it has a chance at FAC and I'd have to tell you that it will...after you finish working on it and have someone who is unfamiliar with the topic give it a thorough copyedit. It is a very extensive article that needs another week's work before it will be getting there, I'd say. I congratulate you for working so hard on it and I really, really want to see this thing reach FA status, I just don't have to time to do more than give you this quick summary. Please don't hesitate in the future to request my help, though. I'd rather know you need it and decide whether I can give it or not than you not telling me :-D. I could also direct you to FAC or PR regulars if you needed extra help. For now, really try to look through the WP:FAC page to find common trip-ups and failings. By skimming through those candidates, you'll quickly get an idea of what is expected. A year ago, the article you have might have been an easy FA, but it's tightened up over there. I'd say FAC is one of the very bright spots of Misplaced Pages in terms of quality and editor consensus, so it's tough to bring an article up to that level...but you can do it. Good luck! JHMM1318:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comments have been more than awesome so far, no need to explain why you can't do more, no need at all. You are doing more than enough. There are plenty of ways for me to make sure this is all addressed, but it might take a little longer than a week. : ) Thanks again. IvoShandor09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just looking for opinions on how this article can be improved, and a rating of its current content. Che8401:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article needs a fair cleanup. That includes more factual information and even a player picture. Also required to make this article good is more informational and club references for those people that wish to view more details about him and/or the club itself. Otherwise, the article has been created with pride - rating of around a 4/10 but after some editing it should look great. Extranet06:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a lot of infomation to this article, including finding some pictures. It's a challenge to write as the club is a very passionate item amongst the older lesbians in the UK. I would like to see it elevated from a Stub. Fluffball7022:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am confused? There is completed citation template for the book that was used. I'm not sure how you would do the page numbers? Except be doing each point as a complete new reference entry? Do I need to reference every single line? Fluffball7019:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you would do each point as a new entry, like; Surname (Publication date of book), p. number
I've done some heavy sourcing of this article, and would like to get it to GA-status or better if possible. I would like recommendations especially regarding any sections which need expansion, and suggestions as to what's missing. Chubbles22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
John Lester was a Philadelphiancricket around the turn of the last century. This article is along the same lines as Bart King which is slowly nearing FA status. The Lester article was just promoted to GA status after a couple fixes. I'd like some advice on how to make this article even better than it is and some day get it up to snuff for an FAC. If anyone has a copy of Lester's book (A Century of Philadelphia Cricket. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951.), that would make a lot of Philadelphian related articles much easier to improve. Any other help is greatly appreciated. Thanks much.--Eva21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I had put this on the article's talk page but since I noticed the peer reivew I'll cut and oaste it here. One minor note that should be addressed is a sentence or two about his personal life. Such as whether he was married, whether he had any children, etc. Quadzilla99 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC
Thanks for the note, Quadzilla. I've got big plans to address this. I mentioned this on the talk page, as well, but I'll reply here, too. I've just checked out a couple library books that may address some of this and want to repeat that Lester's A Century of Philadelphia Cricket would be very helpful if any reviewers have it. Thanks again.--Eva14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have recieved a peer review for the article, and cleaned up the points made. I then sent the article for a Good Article review which was unsucsessful.
I am looking for a series of peer reviews from at least ten wikipedians (more if possible), so I can get a good idea of what would be universially considered as a Good Article across the Misplaced Pages community :-).
Based on the backlog, I think you'll be lucky to get 3 reviews. Here are my suggestions for your article:
The lead doesn't need to have so many notes. It should be a summary of the rest of the article where are these claims are made in full at which time you should probably reference the information.
Try to consolidate some of the paragraphs in the lead.
"The band are..." vs. "The band is..." Is the first form a typically British English usage? I've only ever heard it in use for things like "Arsenal are running up and down the pitch" whereas in American English we'd often say "Arsenal is running..." I'm just double-checking to see if it's a grammar error or just a variation in dialects. In the second case, leave it as is, of course.
You should be able to obtain fair use images of the album covers. Check album articles for the fair use rational.
Is there any literature on the band yet? If not, don't worry about it as long as your web refs are legit.
In the last section, there seems to be a lot of listing going on caused by sudden news of the band and a fan attaching it to the end of the article. Try to smooth this out into prose and figure out if some of it isn't useful. If you can, also try to flesh out the sections on the other articles.
Check out other band articles for ideas on more sections and more information. Here's a good link for you.
Maybe an overall copyediting of the article could make the prose flow better. These are some problematic sentences IMO:
"Displaying a vein of Pixies and Smashing Pumpkins influenced rock in their earlier sound, they have further incorporated elements of piano driven rock ..." Who influenced rock? Feeder? Is the subject the same all the way in thi sentence?
"They both then moved to London, to become sound engineers, and recruited a bass player for their new band called 'Reel' and was later fired, and became 'Rain Dancer', in which that band didn't work out either." And recruited ... and was fired ... and became? I lost the subjects here.
"The Singles (2006) Feeder returned to the studio with this time Stephen Street working as the bands producer, to record three new tracks to appear on their then forthcoming singles collection The Singles." Is this sentence OK? Why "The Singles" are both in the beginning, and at the end of the sentence.
"The year ended with a small tour of London playing The Roundhouse and The Coronet. Two of these gigs seen guest appearances from The Sugababes and Jamelia. The gigs were in aid of War Child." Maybe a bit choppy?
When we quote, we do not quote; we just "quote".
I saw a criticism for wikilinking single years in the GA review. Well, it was not accurate. You can link per MoS single years if they are e.g. "2004 in music" or "2006 in British music" as you do.
Work has been ongoing to clear up this list, or lists, since October 2006. It has been converted to tables, vastly expanded, given a decent lead, see also section and images of people entered down one side. We are still working on formatting the references for entries and ensuring the sources are reliable, and are working to update the list with those who are elegible (please help!), so please ignore those issues. However, this is simple grunt work, and an FLC seems a real possibility sometime in the next few months. Advice on how to get there would be appreciated, particularly regarding what should be on the main page, it seems kinda empty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The images need to be looked at and possibly redone. As examples, Guy Burgess is unsourced. Alan Turing is copyrighted (there's not nearly enough critical commentary to be able to justify fair use her). Rupert Everett gives no indication that the image is actually free and doesn't state who the copyright holder is. Also, lots of the references need to be improved. For examples, Mark Levengood is cited to another Misplaced Pages. Steve Kmetko has a link titled "www.findarticles.com". No article title, no name of the original publisher, no author, no original publishing date, no date of retrieval. ShadowHalo12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did say in my original message that the references were an ongoing thing. I didn't know about the images though, I will go have them sorted out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on this article sporadically for a while, and I'm looking for some input on what else to do with it. --PresN05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Excessive use of quotes (like: "level", "Paradise", 'life', "sandbox", "leveled" and "Blood of a Divine") throughout the whole article. Things that have an unusual name (like level in Oblivion context) without an internal link specific for that meaning should be made italic (e.g.: level system), and those with an internal link should be not within quotes (e.g.: Paradise). Quotes from cited sources should be rephrased, or use {{cquote}}. The reception section is a huge clutter of quotes right now.
Done
The Overview section is just a pile of information stitched together. Move the first four paragraphs to a 'development' section just before 'reception', and the last two to the lead section.
Done
Section structure of the first few sections is confusing. Separate by world, lore, and story information, and Gameplay information. Move guilds a and playable races to setting, and write something about the gameplay. Check out Final Fantasy VIII, a FA, for a good example (though it names the section Plot, which I wouldn't do).
Try to cut some information from the infobox. Long infoboxes are not well-read. Make the image smaller as well - consider having only the logo and name as image, and use the full box cover somewhere else.
Gameplay of the Elder Scrolls series shouldn't be a main article, but a see also.
Done
Guilds section is poorly written and unreferenced.
Story is too long. Cut non-essential information, or move to a separate article. A good way to do this might be to move the information to "The Elder Scrolls" articles instead of this one, like Cyrodiil.
Translation errors is a fourth-level section header, should be third.
Done
Reviews table is too wide. Should be half of the page (on 1024) maximum, and even then the column of text next to it should be made text-align:justify with a div.
Downloadable is an awful neologism, especially in a section header. Consider rephrasing.
Done
Reorganise references to the official game guide. Twelve times the same reference is not good, I'm not sure how it should be done, but I do know that someone must have encountered this problem before, so a template might exist.
Done
Why are only wiki fansites listed? This is Misplaced Pages, not a guide to all wikis. List a few fansites (three or so), and leave it at that. If one of these happens to be a wiki, so be it, but don't make exceptions for wikis.
PS: I would appreciate it the appropriate parts of this review could be marked with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made based on it, or made because of it.
This is my third visit to Film PR. Right now, I am in the midst of getting an article about one of my favourite cartoons to FA level, on or before Easter, as promised in a previous edit summary of mine and on my to-do list. Thanks to Jerry Beck's Animated Movie Guide (I now have it amid an inter-library loan) and various web sources, the page is now starting to get complete.
Except maybe for the screenshots: while images may or may not be pre-requisites for all FAs, for me it's something else. I have the film on my laptop, but, sad to say, our battery's wiring has most certainly run its course. So, on the family PC, I'm trying to do my best without them.
The opening is too jargon-y and doesn't indicate the underlying importance of the strain (that it provides some frost resistance). In fact, the clear link to frost resistance doesn't occur until the "Economic importance" section--far too late.
Misplaced Pages isn't a how-to guide, so there's no need to explain the production of the strain.
Has it been used beyond any government field tests?
I've expanded this article from a stub and provided a history of the series from various sources. I'd say production info is pretty comprehensive but the page could still do with being looked at before it is submitted for GA. WindsorFan16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Nominating this article for Peer Review--I would like for it to be eventually FA level, and have it up for GA review now too, but want even more people to review it so that it can be the best article it can be. I think the prose... is good, and the sourcing is rock solid; but the various overlapping natures of the history of this make me a bit nervous. Some sentences have multiple sources due to this, and to make the fairly... insane story/facts cohesive to read, especially as... there were basically two major overlapping incidents happening at the same time, but that also fed off/were related to each other. Any advice would be very appreciated! - Denny08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Decent, but you really need to work on the lead. Most of that information belongs in the main article. The lead should be a short summary informing the reader about RegisterFly. Right now it's way too long and clunky. Also, what are the exact consequences of loss of ICANN accreditation? Also possible NPOV problems, try and find out how the owners of RegisterFly responded to these claims, and include those responses. Icestryke17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a Good Article which has received a lot of work since its GA rating. I think it is well on the way to the FA process, but what do other people think? Any specific concerns or general comments appreciated. Metamagician300000:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
For FA, it'll need "Retrieved..." dates on all the web references. See today's featured article on the main page for examples.-- Zleitzen08:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The article has a number of "citation needed" templates and a wikified template that need to be resolved, I'll see if I can help some of those soon. Note, I'm the author of Infidel (book), but I haven't worked on this article on a while. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-7 10:54
This is a nice article. I'm glad that someone is writing it since I have a feeling a lot of people will be looking at it with the recent release of her autobiography. Here are my suggestions.
When she was six, her family fled the country for Saudi Arabia, later moving to Ethiopia and then to Kenya, where they obtained political asylum. - Please briefly explain why her family was forced to flee.
In Kenya, she attended the English-language Muslim Girls' Secondary School in Nairobi under sponsorship of the UNCHR. - probably best to spell out the acronym as well as link to it
Following the invasion by the secular nation of Iraq of the Islamic republic of Iran, and under the influence of a charismatic religious teacher, she became a more religious Muslim, sympathized with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and wore a hijab together with her school uniform. Too much information in one sentence - break it up.
She welcomed the fatwa against British writer Salman Rushdie following the publication of his controversial novel The Satanic Verses. - I wonder about the use of the word "welcomed"; the sources say "supported." The connotations are slightly different in my opinion.
from whence it was planned she would join her husband in Canada - "from whence" is a bit formal
Others have disputed the story of her forced marriage - is it possible to characterize these others as a distinct group, such as her family, or not?
After a brief stay in Germany, she decided, in order to escape the marriage, to go to the Netherlands, since she had a distant female relative there who she felt would help her. - awkwardly phrased
frequently coming in contact with Somali women in asylum centres, hostels for battered women (an experience that marked her deeply) - Please explain how these experiences affected her.
She saw firsthand the way certain practices she thought she had left behind in Africa continued in the West. - What practices in particular?
After earning a master's degree in political science - from which university?
During this period, she began to formulate her critique of Islamic culture - "Islamic culture" or "Islam"?
During this period, she began to formulate her critique of Islamic culture, published many news articles, and became a frequent speaker on television news programs and public debate forums, and she then wrote up her ideas in a book entitled De Zoontjesfabriek (The Son Factory). - parallelism problems
In November 2002, after some disagreements with the PvdA about her security measures, she sought advice from Cisca Dresselhuys, the editor of the feminist magazine Opzij. - advice about what?
Because of her statements regarding the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a Trouw interview - might you cite the statements?
Sometimes the article uses "Koran" and sometimes "Qu'ran." Pick a spelling!
Perhaps you could quote some reviews of or reactions to Submission?
The program also presented evidence that she was untruthful about the main reason for her asylum application being forced marriage. - awkwardly phrased
However, several sources, including her first book The Son Factory, which had been published in 2002, stated her real name and date of birth - could you cite this source in the footnotes, then?
At times the article refers to her as "Hirsi Ali" and at times as "Ali." I believe it is supposed to be "Hirsi Ali."
Dick Pels describes her as an exponent of what he refers to as liberal fundamentalism, claiming "This ideology is similar to orthodox Islam in the sense that it thinks its perspective is superior and all people should be forced to have it. He thinks the way these liberal fundamentalists try to debate with Islam, by taunting and insulting them, is not constructive. They only deteriorate the relations between migrants and native Dutch people." - I'm not sure that this is the best quotation to use - it describes the rhetoric of liberal fundamentalists, as Pels sees it, not the values of liberal fundamentalism. The reader still doesn't know what the core values of liberal fundamentalism are after reading this quote.
Hirsi Ali is very critical of the position of women in patriarchal Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery. - This is somewhat oddly phrased - "very critical of the position of women" - how about "very critical of the way Islam attempts to instill patriarchy throughout all of society" or something like that
The second paragraph of "Circumcision" does not seem relevant to the topic of the section.
The "Social and political views" section seems to be divided into too many subsections - too many of them have just one or two sentences. Perhaps some of them could be combined such as "Islam" and "Mohammad" and "Preference for diverse viewpoints" and "Freedom of speech"?
The "Political opponents" section is disjointed. Perhaps this information could be integrated elsewhere?
The "Immigration" section repeats information from the biography section. Perhaps the new information could be merged with "Islam"?
Where are the quotes from in the "Israel and Palestine" section? This section should be more than a series of unattributed quotes!
I would list the awards first rather than the dates; this would make the awards themselves more prominent.
Perhaps you could mention in the biography section that she learned six languages - "Trivia" sections are generally frowned upon.
The "Bibliography" should be listed using a recognizable citation format like MLA style.
The footnotes should also all be cited consistently in one style with all of the requisite information. WP:FOOTNOTE
The "External Links" look a little long - can you prune them a bit?
I would suggest putting all of Hirsi Ali's works - her books, articles, films, etc. - into one easy-to-read spot, like the section labeled "Works."
In the infobox, someone has listed her "religious belief" as "atheism," but that is not a religious belief.
Any translations of the Dutch sources that are available would be appreciated for us non-Dutch speakers. Also, if the Dutch sources could be complemented with English sources, that would be good.
The article sometimes mixes American English and British English. It should be written either in one or the other.
This article needs to have more citations, particularly because it is about a living person and there are frequently contentious statements made about this person. I have added quite a few fact tags.
I've been away for a week or so. Thanks for the responses while I was away. They are much appreciated and I'll deal with whatever I can of them as soon as possible. Metamagician300012:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
These are my suggestions for further improvements in the article (version: 117619187):
Lead: Most prestigious/most selective. These claims need to be cited either here, or further down the article from WP:NPOV sources or taken out. I would note that two universities that could make similar claims Harvard and MIT and prep schools that have similar stature in the US, Phillips Exeter Academy, Stuyvesant High School do not have these claims on their WP articles. For most selective, perhaps entrance statistics could provide support, though I have no idea how most prestigious could be measured or made encyclopedic.
You may also wish to shorten the lead, and move the history that is present in the lead to the History section.
Mention the grades rather than call it a "high school", the definition of which changes according to country. As far as I know, it still has a boarding section, which should be mentioned in the lead, as well as co-educational status.
Rather than call it independent and have to explain in a footnote, call it private. Private/public is a well understood distinction, independent/dependent is murky.
Co-educational status: This should be mentioned in the lead as well as developed further as a subsection in the history. The time of co-educational changes is always interesting for older schools and Robert College's merger with the American school for girls is of significance.
History: Can be and needs to be developed much further. Which sultan was it that gave the irade? The school has status specified by the Lausanne treaty. Musurus Pasha's estate is now part of the campus. The school had waves of different influences and ethnicities educated - e.g. the first couple of cabinets of Bulgaria were mostly educated there. Split into Bosphorus University can also be mentioned here. There is enough history of RC to expand into a major article.
The major events section looks too lopsided towards the Republican period. However, I would caution against making the history section too listy. More prose/less listing seems to be a good thing.
List of Presidents: Aside from notable presidents, do we need every headmaster listed? I notice a lot of red links there. Unless there are plans to provide bio's, separate articles for every headmaster (meaning they would be notable), de-link the red links.
Curriculum: very demanding program, take out POV
A list of every single elective given is unnecessary and makes it read like a school catalog. Highlight what is special/distinguishing about the curriculum w.r.t. a regular college preparatory school internationally, or a Turkish high school.
Higher education: It can be inferred, though not specifically mentioned that college placement is close to 100%. Should be mentioned and cited at the beginning of this section. Last year - what year is that? Statistics should be cited, one per sentence seems like a good idea, esp. in this section.
Extracurricular activities: As of 2006, Robert College has nearly 100 clubs including the sports and publication club, which may be found below. The school has a rich history of extra-curricular activities and sports. - awkward and repetitive. Robert College has a rich history of extra-curricular activities and sports, with nearly 100 student activity clubs as of 2006.
Student council: Why do we have a student council paragraph, which reads like a student council intro from practically every good high school? If there is something specific about it, mention it in the lead.
Publications: Should be named something like student publications if it is to be kept, for a casual reader expects something other than the student newspaper from that section title. Neither of the three articles I used for comparison (Harvard, MIT, Phillips Exeter Academy have such a section, but Stuyvesant High School does, which can be used as an example. If the significance of this section is to illustrate the depth and breadth of student activity, perhaps should be merged into a paragraph in the relevant section.
Move the alumni newsletters and such to an Alumni section.
Athletics: Expand into something other than a list of names of sports. Facilities, sports teams, championships, statistics (what % of student body is a member of a sports team, is the # of sports teams significant?)
Music clubs: The music club being 2nd largest in RC does not mean much to anyone who is not a graduate. Is there anything otherwise notable about it?
Extracurricular activities in general: IMO, this entire section needs to be rewritten to make it less like a school catalog. 3-4 well structured paragraphs would convey the information that this is a school that has a very large amount of extracurricular activities available to the student body and mention a few interesting details, rather than the current format.
Festivals - change the format of this section so that every festival is not a very stubby subsection. There is enough material for a paragraph, not enough for a subsection. The FAF begs the question what the largest festival for high schools in Turkey is. Also, 2000 people come, from where? Do other schools visit? Is it local community? Is it alumni?
Campus - something in the lead about the section about history of campus grounds instead of as a footnote. When was this campus established? When did RC move into it? Again, too much subsectioning in this section. Some details/statistics/capacities about facilities can be given, sports facilities in particular. Labs - capacity? Biology Museum has a rarest collection of what? Expand.
Bosporus Beetle - what a wonderful tidbit! Was it discovered on campus? What is the taxonomy for it? Expand.
Tuition - are scholarships/financial aid available? If so, what percentage of the student body receives financial aid? Cite most expensive school claim, or make it encyclopedic by providing dates and more statistics.
Notable Alumni - change this to a section on Alumni and provide at least a paragraph about the alumni and give the link to List of Notable Alumni. Remove the very POV quote, utilizing the facts in the quote. Alumni associations / newsletters, foundations etc can go here. Also, quite a number of RC alumni support their school later, providing endowments, buildings etc. Some statistics?
Notable faculty - if it is to be kept as a list, provide dates they were faculty and subjects they taught. No non-Turk is going to assume that Tevfik Fikret would have taught Turkish literature. Better to form into 2-3 paragraphs I think. Mebrure Gönenç is an alumna not an alumnus. (female, alumna, female plural, alumnae)
References and notes - very few non-affiliated sources are used. Sources are not formatted strictly per WP:CITE - take a look at Hrant Dink for strict use of refs. Non-English sources should use {{tr icon}}.
Books on RC - Use of citation format here would be nice as well. Perhaps you can use some of this bibliography to flesh out the article. I am sure that RC also gets mentioned in a number of works specifically not on RC. Should the title be changed to include these and list a few of these?
See-also - this section should be for only those WP articles that are not linked in the main body of the article.
Endowment? - Does the school have an endowment or affiliated foundation that provides monetary support to the school?
I'm looking for comments on what kind of information could be added to make the article more complete. (Suggest section headers?) Comments regarding bad grammar are also welcome. How far off GA is the article? Thank you for your time! -GilbertoSilvaFan15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Michaelas10
Well it certainly has a lot of GA potential. Could use copyediting and less point of view. Comments:
Sole years and decade shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.
...commonly called Estádio do Maracanã - Change to ...also called.
Notes should be separated from the references to avoid confusion.
On March 21, 1954 a new official attendance record was set in the game between Brazil and Paraguay match, as 183,513 spectators entered the stadium with a ticket - Add a comma after the date, "as" > "after", remove "match" as redundant to "game".
...three big football clubs in Rio: Botafogo, Flamengo and Fluminese - Replace colon with m-dash.
...a much loved Brazilian sports figure - Remove "a much loved" per WP:NPOV.
...the stadium after him, to Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho - Remove the comma.
Put the "Construction", "Opening", "Post World Cup years", and "Modern day" as subsections to the main "History" section.
References should be properly formatted using the cite templates.
...leading to the death of three supporters, and 50 more being injured - Remove the comma.
Corinthians won the game on penalties - ...,which resulted in the Corinthians winning the game on penalties.
On June 16, 1950, the opening match of the stadium took place - Move the date to the end of the sentence.
...was still by no means finished - ...was still unfinished.
...FIFA were happy for matches to be played - ...FIFA allowed matches to be played.
The official attendance of the game was 173,830, however, the actual attendance was estimated to be closer to 210,000 - The two parts of the sentence aren't opposed to each other. Reword to The official attendance of the game was 173,830, with the actual attendance estimated to be about 210,000.
However, the widely used nickname of Maracanã continued to be used - Remove "widely used" as redundant.
Brazil beat Mexico 4-0, Ademir becoming the first scorer of a competitive goal at the stadium with his strike in the 30th minute - Brazil beat Mexico with a final score 4-0, with Ademir becoming the first scorer of a competitive goal at the stadium with his 30th minute strike. Michaelas1016:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A section about the structure and design of the stadium would be useful i.e that the stadium is a continuous oval bowl etc. What is the section which juts out in the lower half of Image:Maracana Stadium.jpg? There appears to be some form of track in the stadium, what is it used for?
Ages ago, this article was nothing but a "list of patents that geeks don't like" to quote one person who voted it for deletion. Following an extensive editing process, it's now got to the stage where I think it includes a lot of useful info, including links to main articles that report further on a particular patent or the effects that that patent have had. It's also pretty stable as an article.
However, the article still attracts mainly geeks (of which I include myself). I'm hoping that this peer review request will lead to a review by people who aren't patent specialists or who aren't programmers. Hopefully this input will tell us how to further improve the article so it is useful/interesting/understandable by the general public. Thanks in advance. GDallimore (Talk) 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a patent attorney. As, I believe, are User:Nowa and User:Edcolins who are also regular contributors to the article. As a consequence, we can be pretty sure the article is factually correct and non-attorney contributors have never raised any WP:NPOV objections since my major re-write. What I want to know is whether it's useful/interesting/understandable for the average Joe. My personal goal with the article is to make this tricky and often misunderstood/misrepresented area of law more accessible. GDallimore (Talk) 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to improve this article, but I've been having a lot of trouble. Truth is, the song isn't that far above the notability requirements. No music video was produced, and it hardly charted at all since it was only released because Gwen Stefani got pregnant and had to put recording on hold. Most reviewers overlooked it, and "Bubble Pop Electric" was predicted as the sixth single. Does anyone have some suggestions on how to expand the article and improve its quality in general? ShadowHalo05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments Have not read the whole article yet. Some observations: Please consider creating a daughter article on history, and shift such details as notification numbers, or amounts of areas added to the park to the daughter article. History section needs massive summarization.
created need to summarise Done
Do not use citation superscripts in section headers.
Removed
Try to reduce so many levels of sections. For example, you can get rid of "Flora and fauna" section (which has got multiple levels under it) and have two separate first-level section of "Fauna" and "Flora". Done
The section "Conservation Management" need summary form, and avoiding bold fonts. Consider creating a daughter article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Rewritten and daughter article created and need to summarize Done
Linking the audio to baruah.in is bad style. The link should be internal. Ambuj.Saxena could provide you with one aural rendition. Done
Lead size should be doubled in size Done
Etymology can be merged with the lead Done
charming American --> remove charming Done
...firewood etc --> etc remove reword Done
hectares --> use square km (SI) use the {{convert}} template to generate imperial equivalents. (See Climate of India) for working.). Use for all units. Done
Unlink standalone years 1918, etc; link full dates like this August 71999 Done
chapories, nallahs? -- meaning needed as they are Indian terms.
Already clarified
Graph needs to be svg Done
If there a rule in Misplaced Pages not to use other image formats.
Geology Done
Why are places italicised? Remove Done
Visitor information --> rename as Tourism and rewrite as neutral tone without giving travel information to tourists. (One can access the park, Kaziranga can be accessed easily by road etc) Done Still may need editing pls review
Administration: What is the budget? Done The actual amount was not provided event to the UNESCO, every year there is a change in the budget.Amartyabag05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
=Conservation Management= needs to be summarised. Move content to daughter articles and write a summary of the content here. Done Summarised to about 45% of the original content.Amartyabag04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Kaziranga - Karbi Anglong Elephant Reserve -- why is this bold?
Removed bold
pleasantly mild --> remove word pleasant Done
Seasonal variation --> content in this section can be merged with climate and Flora/Fauna Done and created daughter article
This part can be added to both and to avoid redundancy created a subsection
Seasonal Variation: I don't think it's redundant. The part about climate can go in climate and the part about animals migrating can go with flora/fauna. Done
Check out this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/pankaj/325052000/ the user agrees to release the photos under the commercial use licensing. Probably this can please the Wikimedia. Also a not so clear about the release type the Flickr user send me an email which is send to the Wikimedia for further clarification.Amartyabag12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Only in case of two animals Gaur and Indian Muntjac the datas dated back to 1984 were used and in all the other cases the year 1984 figures are used for only comparision with the present figures. After the 1984 3 worst flood hit the park in 1988, 1987 and 1998, so this is a significant year. We have tried to add datas even of 2005, In India most of the survey are done at an interval of 10 years, so most of the datas were of 1999 when the last survey of many animals were done. Reference provided in all cases and the figures are taken from reliable sources like UNESCO and other government surveys. Amartyabag04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Geology
There are no special geological features in the area of Kaziranga as there is in case of the US national parks. We have to use some facts from the geology of Assam and India which are not much influential in Kaziranga. Amartyabag04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done some structural changes and copyedits in order to reduce redundancy and the article to appear less touristy. Sections like "Transport", "Recreational activities" have been added instead of Tourist activities. Also, new section on "Climate" (with subsection "seasonal variation") has been created in order to lessen the number of subsections under Geography. However, I feel "Fauna" needs several subsections. Have not yet read "Fauna" and "Flora", so cannot comment on those. However apparaently it seems "Biomes" could be incorporated in "Flora", not sure though. The article has a heavy burden of red links which needs to be blued. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment-->The citation #23 that Assam has the higest number of Elephants needs examination. From 2001 census, Karnataka with >6000 and Kerela with
almost 6000 perhaps have a higher population than Assam. South India in general has >14000 of the the 27600 Asian elephants in India. A well written article in general. Done Removed wrong statementDineshkannambadi00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
comment -->I may have missed it but is there a mention made that at the turn of the last century, there were as few as 8 Rhinos left in Kaziranga?. An interesting table would be one that shows the decadal growth of Rhino population,
poaching numbers, tourist arrivals etc. This may be available from sources such as www.Indianjungles.com or www.Sanctuaryasia.com.Dineshkannambadi20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment*The clouded leopard is not a big cat. Weighting in at 15-20kgs, it is
a lesser cat (Encyclopedia of Mammals, David Macdonald, p49)I guess opinions vary.Dineshkannambadi03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is Gangetic Dolphin mentioned and not Brahmaputra Dolphin.
Gangaetic Dolphin is a more popular name and have good references.
why almost 478 birds? Please provide exact number or remove "almost". Done
30 Gaurs and 58 Sambar are not really considered significant populations. In fact 30 gaur is a non viable population.
The tiger density I have verified is the highest in Kaziranga but only by a small margin compared to Nagarahole (Karnataka), Kanha (Madhya Pradesh). These numbers can vary from year to year. Unless the population density is significantly higher than anywhere else, its probably better to to just say its "among the highest".
highest is is the highest, a first in exam by 0.1% is always first, when we have good references no need to remove. Amartyabag14:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply-->I understand. But if things change in a few years and number of Tigers fall at Kaziranga, then unless someone changes the information in the article to convey the latest info, the article would be providing incorrect information to the readers.Just a thought, not a bias.Dineshkannambadi22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A paragraph on butterflies and insects is necessary.
Sloth bear in Kaziranga!!. Is there a citation for this. Very rare east of Bengal, most common in south and central India.verifiedDineshkannambadi03:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed at one point a total bird count of 479. I dont see that in some of the articles I have read. Seems like ~350 is more like it.Please verify this. Its better to quote stable numbers for resident, migratory and vagrant birds.
removed from main article, yet the reference is taken from a good source.
*Error-->First of all, the term Royal Bengal Tiger is not a name used by conservationists. Indian Tiger is the correct terminology. Second, the link Royal Bengal Tiger takes you to a page which was perhaps written in haste. I realise it is not within the scope of this article to rectify mistakes in linked pages. The geography of the tiger on this page is shown as only eastern and central India, completely ignoring the fact that some of the most viable and stable populations of the Tiger is in the western Ghats of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Karnataka alone comes 3rd in census reports with 402 tigers (2001). The Nilgiri Bio-sphere reserve has the largest concentration of tigers after Madhyapradesh and combined populations of Sundarbans in India and Bangladesh.Dineshkannambadi18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow — lots of work being done. Several more comments:
Introduction: Does Tiger Reserve have to be capitalized?
Needs, coz' it is the official name
Introduction: Same with this sentence: The park has large breeding populations of Elephant, Water Buffalo and Swamp Deer. Do all the animal names need to be capitalized?
Don't know if there is some norms like this in Misplaced Pages. Someone may throw more light into this.
History: River Brahmaputra → Brahmaputra River. The article about the Brahmaputra is also called Brahmaputra River. Done
History: P D Stracey → P.D. Stracey Done
History: On February 11, 1974, the 430 km² (166 mi²) park was given official status.. Extra period after citation not needed. Done
History: Kaziranga though, has remained unaffected by it, and reports of insurgents protecting the animals, and in extreme cases killing poachers, have been reported since the 1980s. → However, Kaziranga has remained unaffected by the movement. Instances of insurgents protecting the animals, and in extreme cases killing the poachers, have been reported since the 1980s. Done
Geography: Kaziranga is composed of flat expanses of fertile, alluvial soil. Wikilink alluvial soil. Done
Geography: animals shelter during floods → animals go to for shelter during floods. Done
Geography: park experiences three seasons, summer → park experiences three seasons: summer Done
Fauna: Migratory birds from Central Asia that arrive here during winter on include. The word on not necessary. Done
Fauna: Birds of prey include the rare Eastern Eastern Imperial Eagle, Greater Spotted Eagle. Eastern is a repeated word. Done
Fauna: As a reader, the word include is used a little too much. I suggest using synonyms of include for some variety.
Important comment-> regarding Tiger census. It is very evident and acknowledged all over India that the pug mark method used for tiger census over the decades has been highly ineffectual and inaccurate. Even wildlife biologists no longer accept tiger numbers given at various sanctuaries as accurate. Sariska lost all of its tigers years ago but the officials continued to claim 50 tigers.
It took me 9 years to see my first tiger (at Bhadra WLS, Karnataka) and I am only a wildlife enthusiast, and as many years for famous conservationist Ullas Karanth. Given this situation, claiming Kaziranga or any park in India has the highest number of tigers based on census is nothing but a "Hand wave". This is the reason I said not to adhere to web articles or even research articles about tiger census and numbers. Nobody really knows how many tigers are there in India. However I would concede that Kaziranga is one of the better protected parks in India.Dineshkannambadi13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Support
THe article summarizes the most important elements of the Park very well and clearly displays GA quality. It has improved considerably ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Many changes have been made to this article, including the adding of sources, as well as information on their musical style and influence. I know we're missing information on the Girls Dormitory section, so I would like to request to reviewers to temporarily ignore that section. I am looking for prose feedback, as well as feedback on what info seems inappropriate for a musical biography article. The prose itself is rather iffy, as it reads more like a list rather than "brilliant prose." Most of the sentences are probably awkwardly phrased, so I'd like to fix that as well.
I'm also looking to boost this to GA, if not FA. In the latter case, I'd like feedback on what this article lacks to get FA status. Thanks. Pandacomics00:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been attempting to source a lot of unsourced statements and information in the Miriam Rivera article, including:
birthdate
place of birth
aliases
work in pornography
claims about a recent hospitalization
I have also been trying to limit the citations to reliable published sources. Many exist from 2004, when the subject was in the public eye. However, other sources, including a message board and blog for sex workers and people attracted to them keeps getting inserted as a reliable source. I'm seeking outside opinions regarding the quality of sources after a lot of back and forth with an editor who insists WP:IAR trumps all policy regarding sourcing and reliability. Jokestress16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have expressed my opinion in the article's talk page, and my reservations towards blogs. I am happy to see that the situation is calmer now there. Now, I understand the difficulty to source the information the article needs, but I don't think I can offer any original ideas. The article, as it stands now, is a start-class article; with some work and expansion it could get B.--Yannismarou07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally have not inserted anything into that article in quite a while. Look at the history of the article. I give Jokestress credit for writing a good article and urger her not to remove anything more. I also understand that their are some valid WP policy reasons for being cautious about the sources.. To be honest it seems as if Jokestress has problems with using hungangels as a source. As she said "However, other sources, including a message board and blog for sex workers and people attracted to them keeps getting inserted as a reliable source.(Jokestress)" So if it were a newspaper ran by and for transsexuals who are in adult entertainment would she still mention the fact that they are in adult entertainment? Why does that matter to her? Certainly people in adult entertainment would know who was who in those video's and pictures, Right?
I would rate the current article highly thanks mostly to Jokestress. However, I mean If it does not mention the following well known facts.
aliases -- a common practice among the population of which she is a part.
work in pornography -- A well known and undisputed fact, reportedly admitted to by her on There's Something About Miriam
Facts about a recent violent attack and hospitalization -- will have to be added eventually.
The Paris article has been undergoing several minor changes over the past months, but has had much added acclaim over the same period: it is now A-class in three seperate categories! I think now may be the time to make those last final improvement that will raise it (finally) to FA class. This is a major article, so quality (and precision) is not to be taken lightly! Any constructive suggestion would be helpful. THEPROMENADER12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
FA reviewers tend flip a lid if more than a sentence goes unsourced. Let alone a paragraph. As the Paris article has unsourced sections, then I think there still needs to be a lot of work in rectifying that. Ironically, the lead is the most heavily sourced section, but leads don't generally require references, as the material should be sourced below. I recommend taking a toothpick to the article and beginning the laboriously tedious task of adding references to each detail. I think Sheffield was the last city to pass FA, but I doubt even that would get through now due to lack of sources.-- Zleitzen09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem to know more than a thing or two about this, perhaps could you help by adding an invisible <!-- source needed --> or the like tag to sentences you think need sources? There is, of course, the template as well - but things can get pretty ugly with too many of those. Anyhow, thanks for the input. THEPROMENADER01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello ThePromenader. Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to receive any comments on how the article could be improved. Are there any major things which should be covered but aren't, for instance? Any input would be most welcome! --Casper Gutman11:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't wikilink single years (e.g. "founded by Elizabeth I in 1571").
Look at Oriel College, a featured Oxford college article, for other ideas.
Thanks for your input! I can act on several of those items immediately, though the combining and prosification (prosifying?) of the people sections will need a little longer.
I see at the Oriel article that they mention only a few key people in the main article, selected partly to show the breadth of the college's notable connections, and this seems a good idea. The rest of the list can be easily shunted into a separate "List of Jesus College People" article as has been done for Oriel, so as to preserve such completeness as has been achieved with the current arrangement while at the same time decluttering the main article.
If there is another lesson from the Oriel article it would seem to be that a longer article can be tolerated. However, I'd be wary of making (e.g.) the Buildings section too long as I suspect it could risk going beyond what is of general encyclopaedic interest! That said, more could probably be added e.g. on the portraits (by the likes of Holbein and Van Dyck) in the college Hall, and brief sections on the other (less obviously touristic) parts of the college. Time to dig out Pevsner perhaps..... Casper Gutman13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments from AFAProf01
It is an excellent article, very well written, fine references—and you got them all outside the punctuation. Way to go! I live in Texas in the US, and know nothing about the College, but I found the article very informative and interesting. The pictures add a lot. Saying those prayers in Latin is an amazing tradition.
Suggestion: the 1814 chapel pic is quite dark. Perhaps someone with Photoshop or similar graphics editing software can improve it.
Someone placed a comment under Note and references that you look up the instructions for how to make it work. I think that's a bit much. I fixed it for you. It's so simple, and if you scroll down to Wiki markup under SAVE PAGE...SHOW PREVIEW on edit page, you'll see two choices that you can click and insert: {{Reflist}} and <references/>. They are interchangeable. Good work. I wish I had peer edits from you on some of my articles. Have a blessed Palm Sunday tomorrow, and an even more wonderful Easter. He is risen! Afaprof0122:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments on the article! I'm sure all who've contributed to it will be pleased to hear you enjoyed reading it. Hopefully you had a great Palm Sunday too, and will have an Easter that's just as good. Was reminded of all that's most special about spring today while walking in the Black Mountains, Wales, seeing new-born lambs just about everywhere! Casper Gutman22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Alf
Very, very minor points for me - two section titles begin with the word "College" - I'd be marginally happier without them there. The architectural history is at a fine level for Good Article criteria, but I could soak up plenty more, that may just be me though! The gallery views are the least attractive way of displaying the pictures, there isn't enough text to go round, as it were, at the moment, but I'm sure that will come. I'll look up on which page the Grace appears in Reg. Adams' The College Graces of Oxford and Cambridge when I get home this evening and add as an extra reference, provided of course it matches the primary source ;p --Alf13:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll change the section headings, and agree the image galleries are a bit cluttered. More text in that section will certainly help there, and I intend adding some in the not-too-distant future. Thanks for offering to look up the grace! Casper Gutman13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go at releasing the pictures from the galleries, I've managed to find a connection in each of the bits of texts for the placing. The slight overhangs will disappear with a bit more addition though, a case of 'it'll grow into it' :) --Alf00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Good article. No issues on first glance, though perhaps the lead might need trimming down to 3 paragraphs to satisfy the FA crowd.-- Zleitzen09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is under peer review for upgrade to GA status. Please review the article and add your comments below.
The article had been a frequent victim of vandalism and spurious edits. It had also lacked proper citation of facts. Since then we have removed vandalism, copy edited most of the article and added citations. The final sections of the article may require some additional cleanup. Your thoughts? Majoreditor21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Expand lead.
Incorporate quotes.
Add and properly format references with author, title, publisher, date etc; mine the external links.
Life during the Bengal riots (~1944) missed out. These were turning points in her life
October 7, 1950 -- wikify date
Calcutta -- the name is now Kolkata. First instance should be Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), and then use Kolkata. The only exception is "Archbishop of Calcutta", where the title has not changed.
1940s to 1950 missed out
Sections too small. Expand
Difficulties she faced need to be expanded
There was a Hindu priest of the nearby temple who opposed her in the beginning. He later asked her for her forgiveness
Supposed miracles?
Beirut link
Funeral can be expanded
Remove subsections
Mother Teresa with Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandrann --> CM of which state?
President Ronald Reagan presents Mother Teresa... --> US President...
the Prime Minister of Pakistan --> ..."then" Prime Minister...
Balzan prize --> link; what is that?
Copyedit required: When the walls of Eastern Europe, She never again set eyes on her
Thanks you for your observations and comments. I will need to check out some books in order to act upon some of these suggestions. One question. Which subsection(s) do you suggest removing? Majoreditor18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article completely. Just commenting about a thing which striked me first on seeing the article. I do not think that using Image:Mother_Teresa2.gif is a valid fair-use. You are not using the image to illustrate the stamp in question. A valid fairuse for the stamp would only be in an article Stamps released in memory of Mother Teresa, or an entire paragraph in that article devoted to just that stamp. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still have some doubts about why the image should not be used. But do read WP:FU before that. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I need comments about the article's structure, and how to keep the text comprehensive without making the article bloated. I've been looking at Climate of Minnesota, and am wondering whether readers need temperature tables and separate sections like "Precipitation" and "Temperature"; if so, I can add them. Also would appreciate comments regarding prose, organization, flow, length, comprehensiveness, etc. Please feel free to also comment regarding whether a "History" section is needed; it would describe how India's climate has evolved since it was a part of Gondwanaland. Thanks. Saravask19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Looks nice; did not read the whole article though. IMO temperature tables are not needed. If necessary, a daughter article named Seasons in India can be created which will host the temperature tables. A "History" section in line of your proposal would be damn interesting! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Seasons are once mentioned under "Climatology", and again elaborated under "Seasons". In fact, it seems the section "Climatology" can be removed, it's mostly redundant. Can be incorporated in other sections. The first paragraph of "Climatology" may be incorporated into the intro para of Climatic regions. Regarding the maps in "Climatology", rainfall map may find a place in "Monsoon" (may be one image has to be sacrificed), while "wind zone" map, may be, under "Cyclones". As a start, all images may be right aligned. Those may be rearranged later if need be. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the redundancy. I got rid of "Climatology", shuffled some pics, and made other changes (). Still working on finding sources for the "History" section. Please let me know if you have other ideas. Saravask13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A monsoon wind map would be useful
States which receive snow would be useful (6 total)
PNG map needs to be converted to SVG
low value common nouns should be unlinked, duplicate cases of linking should also be avoided
Amritsar -0.6 needs a cite (That figure was reached in Dec 98)
Use − for negative figures
Lowest temp needed. (use the ref I posted on your talk)
Monsoons need to be differenciated into southwest and northeast. I believe these are two separate incidents, and NE <> to retreating
"Many textbooks however, refer to this as a separate season." -- cite needed to debunk this
The Nilgiri Range is exceptional -- actually this applies to the Westen Ghats, hills in Kerala too fall below freezing, and it is plausible that northern western ghats too might fall below freezing at elevations over 1500 m
The Himalayan and Nilgiri hill other hill stations can also be included such as the Gharo-Khasi, Western Ghats (instead of Nilgiri)
Snow disrupts life in Kashmir + blizzards in J&K
Mention the Loo
Many textbooks mention that the Thar Desert is responsible for the monsoons, can this be clarified?
Max rainfall in a single day: . Source here would be the ToI-Mumbai 27 Jul.
Western Disturbances from the Medit. Sea? Brings rain and snow to N. India (IIRC -- my class 10 geography)
A table showing select temperatures across India would be helpful: Fields: Summer max, winter max, summer average, winter average, monsoon max, monsoon average. Cities: Srinagar, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Guwahati, Kolkata, Bhopal, Port Blair.
A standard X-Y graph, rainfall vs months for selected cities would be useful.
NE India is much cooler in summer, any reasons?
submersion of parts of Mumbai and Chennai.. I think the islands of LK and AN would be also severely affected
What about climate of AN, LK? tropical?
The climate of India is difficult to generalize due -- starts negatively. Should be rewritten in a positive tone
NE India is kept cooler in winter through cold air coming in from the B'putra valley. Could this be researched?
Tropical dry, wet, etc could do with some apt photographic images of the vegetation
Some left-aligned images push the section headings, need to be realigned
Wow. Thanks for the critique. It's going to take me several days to address these points; I'll post here after I think I've finished. But there are two issues:
− does not work with {{convert}}; the template probably makes this switch automatically (I haven't checked)
I agree that redundant wikilinking within the body or lead should be removed, but think that some of the climate- and weather-related common terms ("glaciers", "summer", "cloud", etc.) should be kept linked.
I'm willing to discuss these further after I've done the map, tables, research, and your other requested changes. If you see other problems, please share. Thanks. Saravask22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont think cloud and summer should be linked. They are common nouns known to 10 year olds, and just a "type and Go" away. =Nichalp«Talk»=12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment More inline citations are needed in certain section eg "History", and the whole of "Climatic regions". --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That table mentioning the seasons is slightly incorrect. NE monsoons occur only in some parts of India. There for to label it for Delhi, Mumbai, Bhopal would be misleading.
That swollen B'putra image does not add any value to the page. It's hard to pick out the river, and furthermore hard to figure out the extent of swelling
I'd greatly appreciate peer reviews on this article as a whole. I'm particularly interested having the "Characteristics" section re-organized so that comparison of Transcendentalism and dark romanticism is more clear. I've considered using bullets for the three major points of comparison, but they don't seem right. Thank you.
Good article on first glance. Agree with the bullet points idea. That section, which I imagine is very difficult to write, needs more clarification. Could also do with a small summary Done at the beginning of the Prominent examples section.-- Zleitzen00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If you eventually want to go for FA, you will need to expand the lead. It should be about three paragraphs and summarize the article. WP:LEAD
I think that you have to explain transcendentalism more so that the contrast is clearer. I would do this in the "Origin" section when you describe the rise of transcendentalism.
DoneSpawned in eighteenth-century England from ideas of the Romantic intellectual movement - This is difficult to substantiate. Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto is often labeled the first gothic novel and it comes before the beginning of the Romantic movement (traditionally defined).
DoneYou might try to explain why "gothic fiction" is different from "dark romanticism."
Rather than having separate sections on each author, I would use their stories, novels, poems, etc. to illustrate what dark romanticism is.
I would also suggest that you read quite a bit more before expanding this article. Your sources seem a little thin. Using an introductory textbook and an encyclopedia is generally not the best way to go because these works simplify a topic. You should know much more than you include in the article. You should decide what to include in the article (which is actually a summary of the scholarly work on the topic). You should discover what the scholarly consensus is by reading many scholarly books and articles. Google scholar is a good place to start. The MLA database, if you have access to it, would be another good resource. Awadewit23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The first set of categorisations don't appear to have a reference, the ref guidelines for medical articles suggest inline citation for things even if they're covered by the general refs. There are one or two other places where a paragraph doesn't have any refs, might be good to check they are covered by the refs in adjacent paragraphs. Generally the referencing looks robust though.
You might like to standardise the reference style using citation templates so the reference title rather than the raw URL gets hyperlinked.
A lot of the paragraphs are very short, and it might flow a bit better if some of them were combined, particularly in the lead section.
It's no longer a stub - I removed the tag for you!
Are there likely to be any appropriate images you could add? It would make it look prettier, but I have no idea whether there would be anything relevant.
please clarify - first set of categories missing in-line reference? - the in-line reference #1 - the on line edition of the Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders - is associated with this categorization. Did you mean something else?
You're right, sorry. I must have missed it somehow, sorry. I was obviously having a blonde day... ;p Eve18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking a look at the introduction, and you should definitely take a look at Misplaced Pages:Lead section. Some issues I've noticed:
The first sentence should include the bolded title, such as "Cerebral hypoxia is a general term for..."
All the information in the lede should be also be discussed elsewhere in the article. The lede gives plenty of causes of cerebral hypoxia, but such causes aren't adequately discussed. You should consider making a section on the causes of cerebral hypoxia.
Inversely, all of the information in the article should be summarized in the lede. There's a good section on treatment methods, some of which should be included in the lede.
The third paragraph is actually one sentence, and a poorly constructed one at that. It's actually just two lists, and the second list, "or any other event that severely interferes with the intake of oxygen, its transfer to the blood stream, its transport to the brain, its ability to pass through the blood-brain barrier, or its metabolism by the brain" is way too long. You could truncate that whole snake down to "or any other event that severely interferes with the body's ability to handle oxygen" or something along those lines.
Be careful about making phrases overly complicated without adequately explaining or linking them. Here's a sample from the Prognosis section: "Recent research suggests this may be due to an autoimmune response caused by CO induced changes in the myelin sheath surrounding neurons." I have no idea what that means. --Cryptic C62 · Talk01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
The comments about overlong sentences are quite helpful as well as the need to explain some of the more technical comments such as "CO induced changes in the myelin sheath".
You make a good point about the need to clarify the relationship between cerebral hypoxia and its various causes, however, I'm not sure how to handle this. At this point I have a problem of exploding scope. Cerebral hypoxia isn't just a symptom, its a dynamic that is central to the process of brain death. In other words, almost anything that can kill you must at some point trigger cerebral hypoxia.
My other concern is reinventing the wheel. There are reasonably well developed articles on most of the causes of cerebral hypoxia and I don't want to rewrite articles that have already been written.
One solution would be to move to a summary article format. This would allow enough of a lead-in to save people from having to look up each and every cause in a separate wiki article. However, given the many many different causes of cerebral hypoxia even this would be time consuming.
I believe this would be a worthwhile solution. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for this kind of expansion - perhaps there is someone else that would like to take this article under their wing? Egfrank12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, as a provisional solution, I have moved the paragraphs listing causes into their own "Causes" section (after classification). The intro now focuses the notion of severe and mild hypoxia - a concept that is developed throughout the article.
This new "Causes" section needs some further development. It contains little more than a regrouping of causes listed in the previous classification section. Any ideas of how this should be fleshed out would be welcome. Egfrank13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea: Try breaking up the causes into different categories, and give each category its own paragraph or subsection. Expand upon each category and give selected examples. I don't know how well this would work, but it's worth a try. --Cryptic C62 · Talk00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not an expert in cerebral hyopxia, so I won't give content feedback, but here's a style suggesstion: When citing medical journal articles, it is a good idea to link to the corresponding PubMed citation for the convenience of the reader. If you use Template:Cite journal and include the PubMed ID number ("| pmid = "), it creates an automatic link. Good luck with this and future projects! - Rustavo17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has come a long way in the last few months, including coming through a couple of significant content conflicts. The end result has been a well-cited article. Aware that there are still some things to address (see talk page), I am looking for some suggestions/criticism to help get this article to GA status. -- Pastordavid21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Majoreditor
The article is very close to GA status. Some suggestions:
Add an image of a Byzantine icon of St. John Chrysostom
Add final cites
Further description of author's argument in footnote 44 (Wilkin), along with citation of specific pages
Some additional information on liturgical contributions and influence. I will help with that over the next three weeks.
CTSWyneken
I believe the article has a good chance of passing GA. The article is much better documented than many I've passed. I'd try to remove the citation needed tags, either by removing the point or finding a source. I'd also take a quick look at the WP:LEAD standard to see if adjustments should be made to the lead. On a style level, I would also try to turn passive into active tense where possible. It makes text easier to read. Having said that, I would likely have passed it. (Having commented on it now, I have to recuse, though. --CTSWyneken20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The current article entitled The Office has had a confusing past. It once was about the British version of the show and it has changed multiple times. Now it pertains to all versions of the TV show, The Office. There are currently five versions of The Office in the world and they are in a total of three different languages. I feel that this intense article can be helped by the Misplaced Pages community by means of a peer review. Yaanch22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch
Perhaps it would help to organize the current article differently and broaden the focus (which is currently more on the British and American versions). Make the lead paragraphs a summary of the rest of the article, i.e. move the intro stuff out. How about a chronological discussion / history of the development of each (first the British series, then the American, then the others). Either within this or after the history, have a series of subsections that are summaries of each series (with {{main}} templates to link to each of the articles. Then I would have a series of sections comparing each of the four later series to the British original, with briefer comparisons to the other series as needed / applicable. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has many refrences and I am planning on putting it up on FAC so I'd like a peer review before i take it there. It is indepth, but I would like a review from a non-biased editor. The Placebo Effect20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an uncommon kind of subject in WP:VG, but I'll try my best.
This article could use an infobox of some kind. Maybe make one, even. Include the image currently at the top in it, and list information like dimensions, manufacturer, hardware (what kind of sensor?), etc. Done
Move the 'pricelist' from the lead section to the infobox (above), and state both the local currency price and the prices in a reserve currency. Done
The images in the article are horrible. Make them have a size at least somewhat viewable (the sensor bar image is particularly guilty here) and better quality. Wiimote nunchuk.jpg is grainy, zapper and the classic controller are too small on the article, while the images themselves are quite large.
Split 'design' in two: 'How does it look' and 'How does it work', with different titles. Colour and the current lead paragraph of the section go into the first, power source, sensing, memory, and feedback go into the second. Need to figure out where 'strap' belongs. Done
A schematic drawing (svg!) of how the sensing works would be great in that section.
Memory is a stub section. Either expand or merge.
Improve the lead paragraph of the expansions section. (How does one expand it, what does one need an expansion for, etc.)
A small infobox for all three expansions would be great. Just put the images in there, the prices, the manufacturer, the dimensions, and more. The pricelist in the content text doesn't look nice, and infoboxes make great overviews. Note that these are sections, not articles, so keep the box small.
Wii zapper needs expansion.
Tennis rackets, baseball bats and golf clubs? Tell me more. Make a section for each of them complete with small infobox, if there's enough information/content to warrant that.
Steering wheel needs expansion.
More see also - articles about infrared sensors, the wii, list of wii games, and maybe more. Keep see also to about 5 articles. Not much more, not less. Done
There's a 'articles which may contain original research' category on the page. Why? You can remove it, IMHO. Done
PS: I would appreciate it the appropriate parts of this review could be marked with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made based on it, or made because of it.
Product images and an Overstock.com listing indicate that game accessory manufacturer Intec is releasing a third-party Nunchuk controller for the Wii Remote. This is the first third-party expansion to be discovered for the Wii Remote. Surely that should read ...first third-party expansion to be released for the Wii Remote.Sabine's Sunbirdtalk19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. DST hoopla has died down, so now's a good time to do a peer-review for Daylight saving time. I'm a first-time editor trying to achieve "Featured article" status (why not be ambitious?). Some sample questions:
Is there too much detail and too many references?
Section order? For example, "Origin" doesn't come first, on the theory that people first want to know about DST before knowing its history; is this reasonable? Also, "Mnemonic" and "Name" are widely separated; is there a better or more-traditional order for this sort of thing?
Should there be explicit sizes for the thumbnails? The style guide says no, but the map and graph get a bit hard to read with the default sizes.
Definitely not. Some FAs have well over a hundred citations (see AIDS) so 30 is certainly not too many. As I say below, I think you could add more detail in some areas.
I think I would put origin first, benefits and drawbacks second, and when it starts and ends (technical details, really) third. If people are interested in only a specific topic they can use the table of contents. "Name" and "Mnemonic" are both short and could probably be combined -- maybe put that information before origin?
Thumbnails look pretty good to me at 1280x960. Smaller would be a problem. If they're left at default size the user can always set a personal size preference (in "my preferences").
Some other comments:
The intro paragraphs should be a summary of the article that follows. (See WP:LEAD.) In this case, I'd say it should be longer. The second paragraph, which is just a sentence, could use elaboration.
Under "When it starts and ends": I think the skewing of time zones could use some more explanation.
Reading through "Benefits and drawbacks", I get the feeling the author is more interested in the latter. For example, benefits are always introduced by "this study reported", whereas drawbacks are simply stated as fact. Some drawbacks (especially under "Complexity") aren't even sourced. So I think NPOV could use some work.
"Computing" is rather long for something that seems to me rather trivial. Is that really one of the core concepts?
Lots of stubby subsections throughout the article after "Origin". Expand or consolidate: if the topics deserve their own sections, they need more information; if they don't, combine them.
I would remove "Cultural references". (See WP:TRIV.)
This is an interesting subject and it'd be great to see it reach FA -- but I think it needs some more work, especially if it's controversial. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick and careful review.
I'll raise the section-order issue in the talk page; the current order arose because people kept bugging us about details during last week's big DST change, but now that it's no longer a hot topic perhaps we can rethink this.
I will work on lengthening the intro.
The "benefits and drawbacks" section is hampered because there seem to be relatively few reliable sources on the "benefits" side; I asked for more cites on the talk page but so far no luck. I will work to remove bias from the wording, though.
"Computing" used to be waaay longer! I'll trim it down more; some of this can be moved to another page perhaps.
The sections "Mnemonic", "Associated practices", "Name" seem to be stubby in the sense you describe; I'll add something on the talk page about them. Or perhaps you are referring to all the subsections of "Benefits and drawbacks" as well? I suppose some of them could be combined too.
I have edited the page and have followed your suggestions as best I could. Thanks again for the review. I hope it's more suitable for FA status now. Eubulides21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to expand this as much as I can. Besides how jumbled "Films and other projects" is, how does the article stack up? The aim is to get it to featured status within a month. -- Zanimum19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The ikiroid
Wow! I'm glad you've taken on such a project—although FA is really difficult to attain. In your case, I would go for GA instead. That being said, I see a few problems with the article. The recentism needs to be fixed, and the multiple single-sentence paragraphs need to be merged together. Also, the article needs to be expanded, and the prose needs to be severely rewritten so that it flows. Right now, it reads like a timeline (In 1991, he did this. In 1994, he did that. In 1999, he did something else). On the flip side, the article is cited quite nicely. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yannismarou
Nice start, but it needs further work. This is my review:
Maybe you could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
I don't like very much stubby sections, where a quote is longer than the prose like "Military service".
"Under the professional name Sinbad, he began his career appearing on Star Search, Sinbad won his round against fellow comedian Dennis Miller, appearing a total of seven times." If this is really one sentence, it is not nice. In general, you should improve the overall prose, which is often prose and not "professional". Further problematic prose: "While Bonet only stayed with the program for a season, Sinbad stayed with the cast from 1988 until 1991 as "Coach Walter Oakes"."
"With the exception of later addition Marissa Tomei to the cast, the students at Hillman were all high-achieving African Americans with unique personalities, contrary to the "token" roles previously focused on." I don't get something here: the College is fictional; Tome is a real actor. Are you talking about her or about the character she plays. The whole Hillman analysis in these two paragraphs looks to me confusing.
"Films and other projects" is spread with one-sentence paragraphs and looks listy. I see the same problem is other sections as well. This is not nice for a prose that flows badly and seamlessly.
This article was partially re-written in the last few weeks. I think the current version is already in B-Class territory, but would like to clean it up further to get it near GA criteria. Ambi Valent14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I would especially like to know the answers to some questions:
I've read "statements should be attributed to primary or secondary sources" as main guideline and on the other hand "there are too many links to specific strips" as criticism for an article. I'm slightly confused; should there be only a few general attributions to the primary source instead of specific ones?
Where exactly is the line between attributing to the primary source making necessary assumptions and original research?
The "Cast" and "Synopsis" sections are the longest of the article, pushing it over 32K. What would be the correct reaction to this: keep almost all of it, cut short and put the rest in extra articles, or cut short discarding the rest? Ambi Valent10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Nifboy's review
Avoid citing a strip for a statement about the strip in general; just because PvP runs strips like this on occasion does not make it an indication of its theme.
See above, plus WP:WAF emphasizing the use of sources that are not the work itself.
There isn't a "right" answer. Cover as much as is necessary but no more. I would discourage the use of forks simply by virtue of the fact that they tend towards eventual deletion. Nifboy12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it OK if I used Howard's "Tangents" as a secondary source? He wrote both a lengthy review for the entire comic as some long comments to some storylines/scenes. "Tangents" is nearly as old as "Websnark". And how would I put it best in the article: "According to Howard's 'Tangents' review, ..."? Ambi Valent07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
PresN's review
I think the synopsis is way too long. I would prefer it to be about 1/3 of the length it is now, covering only the biggest details. I also think that the order the sections are in is a problem- while a "history" or "development" section does need to be near the top, the section as it is references the story so much that it should be below it in the article- it's very hard to follow right now without it. Done
I was going to say that the cast section was long, but okay as there are so many characters, but then I realized that there is a "characters of EGS" article linked to. If that's the case, you should use summary style, not just a copypaste of the major characters section of that article. Cut each character down to about half the size they are now, but as this is a webcomic article, save a copy of the "chars of EGS" article in your userspace, in case someone gets in a bad mood and deletes it.
The article needs a thorough copyedit, as there's a lot if times where the tone shifts from out-of-universe to in-universe and back within a paragraph. It's a problem that's inherent in fiction articles, but it's hard to notice when you're writing. --PresN20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added that to the article's To-Do-List. Cutting may be an easier task than the others, but it will still take a while. Ambi Valent21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
So far, I made two attempts to cut the synopsis in size, which I threw away. I threw way the first one when I noticed it was getting only barely shorter than the current one, while I threw away the second because I cut so much the rest didn't make sense. Now I'm trying to make a new list of what should be in it, and then put it into text form; I hope that will work... Ambi Valent07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm more than halfway through with the third attempt to cut the synopsis in size, but the parts I cut are just over half as long as before, not cut to 1/3. Maybe someone else can compress it further without losing vital parts, but I think I'm at my limits. I'll complete this and move the sections around, then head for the cast section. Ambi Valent07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Malkinann's review
All your images need detailed fair use rationales in addition to the templates. Also, your citations need more detail - author, date, last accessed date being bare minimum. Rather than citing the strip itself, cite reviews of the strip. Like, when it talks about the art originally being bad, cite the review that says it was, rather than the first strip. Good luck. -Malkinann04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Would creator's permissions for the images be sufficient, or are more rationales needed? As for the citations of strips for statements that talk about the comic in general, I will cite reviews there, and will make cite web statements for reviews more detailed. But what about strips I cite as support for an extraordinary statement inside a summary, like a transformation into an anthrofeline? Ambi Valent09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure - ask the Misplaced Pages:Help desk. I had thought that as they were there under Fair Use, you'd need the detailed citations, but if you've got Shive's permission, then that may yet be another kettle of fish. Try and use the reviews and author's comments as much as possible, and only use comics for non-interpretive facts. You can also make the cite web statements for individual comics more detailed - I've plunked a goodish-filled-out example in the to do list that you can copy-paste and use. I'm really suprised that the author's commentary isn't more extensively quoted as a primary source in the article. -Malkinann11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd use more of his commentary, but he mostly comments in EGS forum articles, which I hear are must-not cites. I have already cited "Painted Black Special Features" as well as the early roleplaying sessions of Elliot, Tedd and Sarah. Ambi Valent11:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd gathered from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources that forums could be cited, as long as it wasn't just shooting one's mouth off about anything. My interpretation of WP:RS is that the author of a webcomic talking about his inspirations on a forum created for the purpose of talking about the webcomic could be considered a reliable source. Read the policy and judge for yourself. -Malkinann11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To answer the above questions, "Use with permission" images should still be tagged fair use with rationale (Misplaced Pages:Image use policy). Citing forum/blog posts by the author is perfectly acceptable (with caution), but the further you get away from "authoritative source", the more care should be used in citing it. Nifboy17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot. Up to now I've never been sure if I was actually doing the right thing, or if I tainted every word I wrote with OR, and put it closer to deletion each day. Now I can finally start working with the rules to write an informative article. Ambi Valent19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You may also wish to rework the storyline section as it's a bit confusing, (the League of Copyeditors may be able to help you there) and lastly, rewrite the lead. According to WP:LEAD, each section of an article should be represented in the lead in a sentence or paragraph. -Malkinann 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Another thing.. Maybe swap out that image of silhouette!Grace with an image of non-silhouette human!Grace. It'd give more information to a non-fan. I've stuck in a couple of fact tags, too. -Malkinann12:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Some language in the article is very biased and/or is missing references. Maybe someone who is French or is living in France can contribute. --Heikoh23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
CloudNine
First of all, there's no need to bold sentences in Controversies. It makes the article more awkward to read.
Career needs expansion; there are several one line paragraphs.
Could you possibly find a free image of the person? He is a public personality after all.
Fix the citation needed or dubious tags, or remove the information altogether.
EMEA may not be immediately obvious to readers; why not expand the acronym?
How did Le Meur announce his support? You might want to add a translated comment.
There's little about his personal life. Where was he born?
FP, here is an automated peer review output to get things started. Not all may apply since it is an automated review, but a quick scan shows a few you can work on to improve the article. Although not officially required for GA-status, I would suggest trying to have a cited reference for every paragraph and for the tables (i.e. where did the ablum chart info come from). That will help the GA review and you will have already met requirement 1.(c) for FA status. I would also recommened workingon the prose for the beginning of the history section, it could be written in a more encyclopedic manner IMHO. Good luck!
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
allege
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
I would put it by the column header assuming the source is the same for the entire column, e.g. after "USA" and after "UK" in the first table.
Album covers should not be used in the discography section (see Misplaced Pages:Fair use), and the ones that are being used in the main article space need detailed fair use rationales. The Grammy Award history should not be separated by whether or not they won; rather, it should be one table with an additional column for the result. ShadowHalo08:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Much work has been done on this article since it was promoted to A-Class article status. I'd like to know what other editors think should be done to meet requirements for Featured Article (FA) status.
Thanks! Jancarhart19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Material and comments from former peer review request
There are quotes in this article that are not appropriately cited, and I am hoping those editors who contributed these quotes, which are good ones, will add the citations. While factual and providing a solid array of "hard," academically qualified citations, the section on Stanton's break with the abolition movement clearly ruffles some feathers. I'd like to know what others think of this article and would welcome suggestions on this and any other aspect of the article. Jancarhart23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that this article was quite good. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "ruffling feathers;" historical personages from another era do not always do what we want them to do. I am assuming you are presenting the story as scholars have presented the story, so no feathers are flying over here.
If you want to go for FA, I would recommend a copyedit. There are some awkwardly worded sentences, spelling mistakes, etc.
Any direct quotations should immediately be followed by a citation. Also, again, if you want to go for FA, you will probably need some more citations, particularly for claims about what Stanton felt and larger claims about her impact on society.
You might look to wikilink a bit more. I thought Charles Grandison Finney should be linked, for example.
I wonder if you could create some sort of "Legacy" section that more clearly outlines which of her ideas were adopted and which of her ideas influenced later feminists.
I wonder also if you could discuss her writings in more detail, either within the narrative of the biography itself or in a separate section.
Have you tried searching for the quotations on google? I have had a lot of luck using google for that sort of thing. Awadewit23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for comments. Would be graeful for any copyedit & wikilink you think appropriate. (I will add one on Finney.) Not sure what additional citations to add -- are there particular "claims" you think need citations? (It seemed to me they were either already cited or have been noted within the text as requiring citations. I'm still hoping the folks who oput these in will provide the necessary citations, as I've been unable to find sources for them, and several of them seem worth keeping, if they can be cited.) As for ruffling feathers -- that's based on comments that have been made on the discussion page. ECS was clearly a remarkable woman who had her limitations nevertheless. Seems some people are uncomfortable with including these aspects despite their being remarkably well documented and despite the fact that, understandable or not, they resulted in schisms within the women's rights movement. 71.192.46.15203:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done a quick copyedit and added some fact tags. I have a feeling that some editors might say the article is too "essay style," that is it comments too much on its subject. Personally, I think it is fine, but I have been criticized for this and wanted to warn you about it. Somewhere in the archives of my talk page User talk:Awadewit, someone explained this concept to me. Feel free to browse those comments and take it for what you will.
"Oh, my daughter, I wish you were a boy!" - is from Stanton's autobiography; it is from the first paragraph of the second chapter (School Days); I found it on Project Gutenberg, so I don't have a page number, but you seem to have the text itself
I was searching for the rest of the quotes myself, without any success I might add, and I noticed something odd. The article is all over the web. Do you know how many sites wikipedia has licenses with? I wonder if they have plagiarized from wikipedia. It was strange. Especially after I had edited the article and all of the "citation needed" tags popped up on those articles.
I wonder if you might send those quotes to a reference librarian. They are good at tracking those kinds of things down and you are right that many of the uncited quotations are good and deserve to be kept.
Well, I don't think you should worry about ruffled feathers. You should tell her biography "warts and all" as Cromwell once said about his own portrait.
I would also add to my review that I think the lead should be expanded to include more about the schism and her role in the women's rights movement in general. Leads are usually three paragraphs for articles of this length, so I think you have room to expand. WP:LEAD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 16:28, April 2, 2007 (UTC)
Once again, many thanks!! I've been out of commission for awhile -- recovering from a broken wrist -- and haven't had a chance until now to work on the article. I really appreciate you adding "citation needed" to places where they were lacking. Seems I'm footnoting every fact, but I suppose that only makes sense, particularly given there is some discomfort with the section on ratification of the 14th & 15th amendments and the schism in the women's rights movement. A friend of mine's a reference librarian -- hopefully a good source for referencing the uncited quotations. (I was, of course, hoping the editor who put them in to the article might add her own citations, but, alas, seems that's perhaps not meant to be.) You mention that you've seen this article "all over the web." Is it actually quoted on other websites, or is it just that, as usual, a Misplaced Pages article comes up first with partial quotations in a Google search? If it's actually quoted or plagarized elsewhere, is there anything you know of that I should do about that, or is that a general "wikipedia" problem? (If Misplaced Pages copyrights the material, I assume they've got someone who monitors plagarism and copyright infringement issues, don't they?) In any case, thanks again. If you come up with any other ideas, I'd love to know what they might be. By the way, I just looked at the comments you directed me to about "essayist" writing on your pages. Noticed that you're doing your dissertation on 18th century British lit. I know he's a century earlier, but my first British lit scholarly interest was Jonathan Swift. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on his poetry. My real love, however, is Blake.Jancarhart22:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been in a good-but-not-perfect state for a very long time; I remember promising to work on it soon back in October after an unsuccessful FAC nomination, and it was recently the subject of a stillborn SCOTM in February. I've been intermittently picking at it over the last couple of weeks but have left the basic structure intact. Specific questions:
Placement and size of the antibiotic resistance example.
Readability to people who haven't had this article watchlisted for months, possibly years
'Impact' section in particular, I think, needs further development. On the other hand, I think the history section may be hypertrophied considering that the subject is treated very well in other Misplaced Pages articles.
I have a few comments, mostly regarding article size and organization.
The article is fairly long. You might be able to summarize more briefly some of the sections that have their own articles. ("Historical development", as you suggest, is a good place to start.)
35k prose at the moment. I hate to cut this section too much because it's long-standing and rather well-written, but it does seem excessive. I'll give it a trim.
Under "General principles": "Sexual selection" could be cut down and combined with "Types of selection".
I would remove the "Nomenclature and usage" subsection and put that material in a paragraph immediately following the first paragraph of "General principles".
This and sexual selection have actually been trimmed a bit already. I moved the nomenclature section to the top but kept the subheader, as it doesn't really qualify as top-level material for 'general principles' (personally, I'd probably remove it altogether, but apparently this has in the past been a point of dispute). My bias is to keep sexual selection as its own header, but you're right that logically it goes under 'types'... will think about this.
Too many stubby subsections under "Genetical theory of natural selection", though I'm not sure how it could be reorganized other than just removing the headings.
These are pretty standard subtopics, and I think there's a utility in keeping the recognizable terms in the TOC so people can find them easily without reading the whole article. But the TOC is quite long; does it at least fit on the first screen for you?
The "Speciation" subheading under "Evolution by means of natural selection" is probably unnecessary.
"Impact of the idea" has more stubby subsections which should be removed or reorganized. I would also rework the first sentence -- to say only that it had a profound influence on 19th-century thought suggests that its influence was less profound later (and today). The section is tangential by interesting: I like that the article is not limited to the science.
Good suggestion; I'm planning on rewriting that first paragraph, and I've been trying to think of where to move Lotka so he doesn't get his own header; all that maximum-power stuff is one of those systems concepts that's right on the border between 'useful' and 'nonsense'.
More inline citations would be a plus. "Fitness" (under "General principles") and "Genetical theory of natural selection" are especially lacking.
Well, the material in those sections is really very uncontroversial, and mostly definitional more than anything; it can all be found laid out very straightforwardly in the Rice book. However, that book is very mathematical and probably not accessible to a general reader, so I'll try to rustle up a text that's less quantitative as a supplementary source. Are there any specific statements in those sections that you think need explicit citation? (You may also be interested in this thread on FA citation criteria, which didn't happen in the most visible place.)
Overall, seems like scientific jargon is treated well. But I'm familiar with it so my opinion might not be the most useful.
Looks well done, but I think it'll need a little more work before FAC. Also consider submitting this entry to WP:SPR, although feedback may be long in coming if it comes at all. -- bcasterline • talk20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I'll post here again after looking at the impact section, at minimum. I'm not sure scientific peer review would be helpful, since most if not all of the people who would be likely to participate already watch and maintain this article. Opabinia regalis04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is, in general, a very well-written and clear article. My biggest issue is that it is written on too high a level. Because natural selection is "foundational" to modern biology, as the writers say, I feel that the page should be more accessible. I also feel that it is possible to explain the concepts to people unfamiliar with the material (it does not require higher mathematics, for example). Many of my suggestions below bring up sentences or sections that I feel my college freshmen would not understand (some I did not understand, and I am a graduate student in English who is an avid reader of popular science books). I want to make clear that I think that the editors have done very good work, I just want to make sure that their work is comprehensible by the general public. I have posted my comments on the first third of the article. I will post more later.
Opening sentence is crystal clear to me, but I keep thinking of my freshmen. Does "genetic" mean the same thing as "heritable"? If so, I wonder if you could use that instead. It is a much more familiar word.
Not quite the same, although this is part of the subtle nomenclature distinction below; it is possible for something to be heritable without being genetic, or to be genetic only in a second-order kind of way. This is a common criticism of the claim that intelligence must be genetic because it's highly heritable - maybe there's no gene for intelligence, but intelligent parents create the kind of environment that produces intelligent children. It is also at least possible for something to be genetic but not phenotypically heritable - as in cases of low penetrance - due to stochastic variations in gene expression. This distinction is currently preserved in the lead to evolution (which changes by the day lately, but anyway...) and I think it's worth preserving here. Anyone with a decent grasp of English should be able to grasp the basic meaning of 'heritable', I'd imagine? Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. In regards to the article, it all depends on what you mean by a "decent grasp of English." I would say, no, that the majority of the college freshmen that I teach would not be able to define that word or, unfortunately, even guess what it means from context. This is, of course, just one person's opinion. I have only taught a few hundred undergraduates so far. Perhaps we should find someone with a larger data set to ask, someone who has taught a few thousand, for example. :) Anyway, all of these suggestions are simply that, suggestions for making the article more accessible to a wider range of readers. Awadewit14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're beating me by... a few hundred ;) But I'd be really, really surprised if the connection to 'inherited' wasn't a clue... the word could just as well have evolved as 'inheritable'. Opabinia regalis03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You would think so. Sadly, no. I just thought I would point this out. Do want you think is best for the article. Awadewit04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about introducing "genotype" and "phenotype" later in the article? Do you have any idea how often people look at this article? I would actually think quite a bit and I remember even in my college class on genetics for non-scientists at Columbia people could not keep genotype and phenotype straight (it was so ridiculous). You might think about this in terms of the article. That whole semester, the professor kept repeating the definitions over and over again. They were on every test and people still kept messing them up and Columbia is no slouch school. For some reason, people cannot wrap their heads around the nuances of the difference.
Oh no, that's... so sad. So very sad. I have, however, spoken to an aspiring medical student who told me that his 'mnemonic' for this was that genotype meant genes. I always knew the pre-meds turned their brains of.... anyway, isn't this a good reason to put the distinction early in the article, and very clearly? Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not really sad. It's pathetic. Anyway, I would leave it out of the lead and give yourself room at the beginning of the article to really explain it in detail with examples if you are going to use these words as often as you do. I just wanted to give you a sense of how difficult this terminology seems to be for (supposedly) smart people. Awadewit14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Even banishing the word phenotype from the lead wouldn't really help this problem, I don't think, because the concept is critical - and it doesn't seem to make sense to discuss the concept extensively without giving it a name. I think the fact that natural selection works on the phenotype but has effects on the genotypes of future generations used to be considered a trivial point, and became more important when people started noticing that the fitness of an individual gene could diverge from the fitness of the body it inhabited. I added a small example in the general principles section, and a definition of alleles (from a classical perspective... we don't need to get too much into the chemistry of DNA here). Opabinia regalis03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Over time, this passive process can result in adaptations which specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and in speciation events by which new species emerge. - "passive process"? You mean the organisms don't choose it, right? Odd phrasing, though. Repetition of "species"; how about, "adaptations which specialize organisms for particular ecological niches; this is how new species emerge." Something a bit more dramatic and clear, maybe?
I thought we weren't linking individual years (1859 book) - are we or arent't we? AHHHHHH!
Eh, I can't keep up with this stuff, and it's sad that many people can apparently find nothing better to do with their time than argue at length about this. I think this one is marginally useful, as other events in 1859 could be vaguely related, but it can go if someone cares more than I do. Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I could care less as well, I just wanted to point it out because I keep seeing that criticism arise at FAC. Awadewit15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species, by analogy with artificial selection, a process by which individuals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. - "by analogy" comes too late, we've forgotten what the analogy would be to by this time; it seems like we're talking about Darwin's groundbreaking book, not "the term" - reword (also, choose one verb tense)
Rephrased.
The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a theory of inheritance; the union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. - explain - this is all so opaque - I think you mean that they didn't know about genes and DNA (Mendel was a closeted monk, right?) - is the "modern synthesis" the joining of Watson/Crick to natural selection?
Actually a little less modern than that; more like the joining of Mendel and Darwin - classical genetics didn't require a theory about the physical nature of genes to work. Tried to give a bit more context in the lead, without bogging down too much. Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Although other mechanisms of molecular evolution, such as the neutral theory advanced by Motoo Kimura, have been identified as important causes of genetic diversity, natural selection remains the single primary explanation for adaptive evolution. - if it is the single primary explanation, should it not remain alone in the lead in an article by itself? This introduction of another concept that I had to click on (sorry, I've never heard of "neutral theory" and it's not explained here) was distracting. All of a sudden, I, a stauch evolutionist, was going, what, natural selection is wrong? I don't think you want that. Something about the wording is off. Perhaps it is the "although." I would leave it off the lead, altogether, unless it is vital to understanding natural selection.
Is it really that jarring? Is it better now? There's a population of biologists who will smack people for 'naive' views of selection, especially those who work with molecular data - which are full of drifty stuff that makes actual adaptive changes hard to see amid all the noise. Hopefully some of the others who watch this article will have an opinion on this, though, as I know I'm biased on the molecular side. Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, but this article is not for biologists, really, is it? They should know all of this stuff, right? Isn't this all from Bio 101? You know how in physics you start with the planetary model of the atom and then move to the orbital model of the atom and then move to whatever comes next. There are more, but I never got there. The point is, these other models are not really correct, they just help people understand some of the basic concepts. So the article may initially look naive but it will go into more detail and of course it can never provide all of the detail that evolutionary biologists know. In this case, I think your article is actually more accurate than an planetary or orbital description of the atom, right? Awadewit15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not inaccurate, just (some argue) misplaced emphasis. (Do people still teach the planetary atom thing? I don't think I ever got that without the obligatory asterisk.) I suspect that, if the molecular people were in charge of bio 101 (and there were no political minefields to deal with), they'd present selection and drift as parallel processes, rather than the current common setup where selection is discussed in detail and nobody hears of drift until they take a dedicated genetics class. But if you work with and present only morphological data, you really don't 'see' much drift. I put this question on the talk page for now. Opabinia regalis03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Darwin do the finch analysis in the first picture you have? You might mention that.
Done.
The phenotype is the overall result of an individual's genetic make-up - "overall result" is not clear - isn't the phenotype the "outward" or bodily appearance of an organism, which is the result of genes, environment, etc.? Am I wrong? Was all that repetition in my class to no avail?
Reworded a bit to make this clearer - it's supposed to be 'overall result of genes, environment, gene-gene interactions, and gene-environment interactions', so they're all elements of a list. Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Often, natural selection acts on specific traits of an individual - what do you mean by "trait"? The most common usage of this word, by the way, is "character trait." I know you don't mean that but a lay reader doesn't automatically know what you mean by "trait."
Linked again to trait (biology). It's a fuzzy enough concept that trying to define it here for those who can't jump the chasm from 'character trait' to the biological usage is probably fruitless. Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know what the general associations of the term are and why the word should be defined. You know how scientists use the word "theory" differently than the general public and how that has caused a lot of commotion in the evolution debate? It's the same principle. The connotations of these words can be very different to a lay audience. I'm not saying they can't understand it, I'm trying to tell you what many people might think when they read the word "trait." Awadewit15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think the biological usage is so different from the common usage in this case, though, do you? Or is my 'normal usage' already contaminated? ;) Opabinia regalis03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Trait in biology seems to be a lot more concrete than its everyday usage. Character traits are often elusive things like "patience." Dictionary.com, for example, defines "trait" as "a distinguishing characteristic or quality, esp. of one's personal nature: bad traits of character." Awadewit04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Most traits are influenced by the interactions of many genes, but some traits exhibit Mendelian inheritance patterns and are governed by only a single gene. - perhaps "Most traits are influenced by the interactions of many genes, but some traits are governed by only a single gene - they exhibit Mendelian inheritance patterns." - that way the easy part comes first and it is clear that the two definitions mean the same thing
Reworded.
The "Nomenclature and usage" section makes subtle distinctions. I know that wikipedia is against explanatory examples, but they are necessary here. My students would never understand this passage. If wikipedia won't let the editors write their own, there must be published examples. I know I have read them somewhere. Let me know if you want me to dig them up.
I don't know what they're lawyering about on ATT or wherever, but I'm not sure an example is really what this distinction needs - I'd just as soon throw out the section altogether, as the distinction is subtle enough to be irrelevant at this level. But you've seen examples of this nomenclature distinction? Where? Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to find them, but it will be a few days because I am off to an academic conference. Might be Dawkins, I'm not sure. Awadewit15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Back from the conference. Looking for the sources, but I'm leaving for another conference in a few days. I don't know if I will have time to find them before then. Awadewit04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The basis of this approach is easily seen - most writing manuals will tell you it is not a good idea to tell your readers that something is "easy" or "obvious" because if it's not "easy" or "obvious" to them, you have just insulted them
Ah yes, 'the proof is trivial' ;) Reworded to 'is clear', which may not be much better, but I felt like I was insulting the reader just writing this out. It really should be very obvious, shouldn't it? Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid many things are far from obvious to many people. You might see some of the debates I am engaged in at FAC over the use of sources as examples. There is apparently a wide misunderstanding regarding the reliability of primary sources (such as autobiographies) and popular histories and biographies. What seems perfectly obvious to me, such as one cannot rely on Reagan's autobiography as the main source for his article, does not seem obvious to others. Obviousness seems to be in the eye of the beholder. :) I am currently writing a manifesto on sources I have had so many debates over this. Awadewit15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, I had seen the Reagan FAC in passing but hadn't really appreciated it till now. There are tons of misconceptions floating around here about proper use of sources and the function of references - I suspect this arises from lack of writing experience, but I guess you're not supposed to say that out loud ;) You should definitely write something about this; you're one of the most articulate defenders of good choices of source material. Opabinia regalis03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
if an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become enriched in the adult population of the next generation - "enriched"? - I found that confusing diction
Natural selection acts on individuals, but its average effect on all individuals with a particular genotype is the fitness of that genotype. Fitness of a genotype is measured as the expected number of surviving progeny for an individual with that genotype, equivalent to the reproductive success or to the proportion of surviving progeny multiplied by the expected fecundity. A fitness value of greater than one indicates that the frequency of that genotype in the population increases, while a value of less than one indicates that it decreases. The relative fitness of a genotype is estimated as the proportion of the fitness of a reference genotype. Related to relative fitness is the selection coefficient, which is the difference between the relative fitness of two genotypes. The larger the selection coefficient, the stronger natural selection will act against the genotype with the lowest fitness. - This paragraph could be explained a little better. I don't think that I really understand it.
This is basically an attempt to say what's in fitness (biology) without the equations. Which seem to put people off for some reason ;) I don't think the formal definitions need so much airtime in the absence of the equation, so I'll reword this. Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the equation would help. Seeing the equation written out in words is very confusing to me. Awadewit15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The fitness of an organism may be broadly said to be a function of the fitnesses of its alleles. - first time the word "alleles" has appeared - no link - no explanation
selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment, including mates and conspecifics - give us a phrase and "conspecifics," especially because the link was to the middle of some page on competition, so it was not immediately clear what I was supposed to be looking for (are "conspecifics" organisms that are in competition? it doesn't say that anywhere on the "competition" page)
That's bad, I didn't realize there was nothing very relevant there. It means 'members of the same species' and is now defined inline. (And this is as far as I got today... more later.) Opabinia regalis04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is also useful to make a mechanistic distinction between ecological selection and the narrower term sexual selection. - "mechanistic distinction"? Again, this is sophisticated language.
Ah, we finally get to "An example." While this is a nice example, I would argue that the article needs examples sprinkled throughout it. Frankly, most people cannot learn from abstract concepts alone. Educational theorists will tell you that being able to learn from concepts alone is a mark of intelligence (those theorists who believe in intelligence, anyway).
You might mention what you mean by "misuse" of antibiotics in the first paragraph, rather than burying it in the middle of the example.
Example's been rearranged a bit, so that the arms-race stuff is all together. I'm not sure this is the place to get into all the ways people misuse antibiotics though. Opabinia regalis03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You might at least mention not taking antibiotics until the end of their specified run. "Misuse" might imply drug overdose to some people. Awadewit16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the NSF report on scientific literacy (they do this study every other year)? It is appalling. Anyway, one of the things people have a really poor idea of is numbers, so I would suggest instead of saying among their vast numbers of individual members saying how many specifically and explaining one reason why it is that bacteria can become resistant so fast - there are a lot of them reproducing very fast.
I hope you don't mind me commenting on your review, especially a rather trivial point, but I wonder about this. I was always under the impression that stating an actual number, when that number is extremely large, is even less helpful because people simply can't visualize it. As a result it means nothing to them. In other words, a "vast number" is more easily grasped than "about 110 million", or whatever. -- bcasterline • talk17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point. But what if the editors put the number in context somehow? Something like "there are 10 times more bacteria in the human body than human cells." Or some other illuminating comparison. Awadewit18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. The difficulty with this is that there really isn't some fixed number that can be offered up as 'you need this many bacteria to get this effect' or whatever, and the bacteria/human cell ratio is mostly irrelevant since the vast majority of those bacteria are not the pathogenic ones. Also, the number of pathogenic bacteria present during an infection is certainly widely variable, though I'm not sure that it's been reliably measured. On the other hand, 'vast' is really weak for expressing the magnitude of this.
several new strains of MRSA have emerged that are resistant to vancomycin and teicoplanin - how about "resistant to the antibiotics"?
In your schematic representation of resistance, which is great, by the way, I would move the key to the bottom so that people don't confuse the key with the populations. Again, it really is enlightening to read reports. The tests associated with No Child Left Behind (whatever you think of the law - let's leave that aside) reveal that many if not most of the high school students in the United States cannot interpret a basic table or graph (let us not even consider a slightly more sophisticated graph).
I mean put the key under the caption. I have a feeling some people might think the key is another population set. Awadewit
Ahh. OK, assuming I see what you're getting at, that would make the key its own separate image displayed below the text caption. I think that might cause more problems with images lining up and such - would it help if I just moved the key down in the image, so that there's more white space between it and the populations? Opabinia regalis06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Natural selection by itself is a simple concept, in which fitness differences between phenotypes play a crucial role. It is the union of natural selection as a mechanism with genetic material as a substrate that offers most of the theory's explanatory power. - again, with the "simple" - also, "substrate"? not a common word - makes me think of rocks, for some reason
Yes, it's an old word, but it was the one used in originally formulating the theory and is now universally but exclusively used in this context. Opabinia regalis03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow - that is incredibly detailed, thank you! Hard to believe it's just the first third of the article ;) Sorry for not responding more specifically, or doing any work, but I've gotten tied up in meatspace (hmm, mixed metaphors...) and may not be around much for the next couple of days. Opabinia regalis04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
More comments.
Overall, in the "Genetical theory of natural selection" section, I would say: examples, examples, examples.
Added a couple; can add more, but I wonder how useful these are given the fact that there isn't enough room to go into much explanation of the example itself. Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that you could cut the first two paragraphs under "Pre-Darwinian theories." I would stick to the direct history of "natural selection" and let the rest fork.
OK, it's been chopped a bit - I do think a little background is relevant, as the theory was anticipated to a greater degree than is usually taught. Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
radical evolutionists such as Jean Baptiste Lamarck had proposed that characteristics - what is a "radical evolutionist"?
It is not totally clear how Lamarckism is different from Darwinism.
Lamarckism as a theory is essentially about inheritance, and happens to have a mechanism of evolution attached. They aren't inherently incompatible, except in the practical sense that acquired characteristics don't change subtly over time as is usually assumed for natural selection. Darwin explicitly did not posit the inheritance of acquired characteristics as a requirement of his theory, though he didn't really have a better theory of inheritance. (One criticism was that 'blending' of characteristics wouldn't maintain them long enough for selection to work, but as far as I know, most people by that time didn't take blending inheritance very seriously.) Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is better, but I was wondering if you were trying to link it to the geological theories or not. I was assuming you were but that was not explicitly clear. Awadewit15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
For Darwin, natural selection was synonymous with evolution by natural selection - just confusing until you read further - start with something that is not confusing
The sentence as it is worded sounds odd because most people don't think of natural selection as a mechanism. The rest of the paragraph makes this clear, but the opening sentence might confuse. Awadewit16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Within a decade of The Origin of Species, most educated people had begun to accept that evolution had occurred in some form or another - this is debatable - you might want to find a source
It's been reorganized a bit. I need to hit the library this weekend, I suspect, as a significant fraction of the books I own related to this subject are still in a box in another state. Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't even have room for all of mine. They are stacked all over my apartment and in suitcases in my office. It's sad. Poor books. :) Awadewit15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This synthesis propelled natural selection to the forefront of evolutionary theories, where it remains today. - "forefront" - I think this is the wrong word, don't you mean something like "the center" or "foundation"? "Forefront" often means untested and unproven.
Darwin's ideas, along with those of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, had a profound influence on 19th-century thought. - why are you invoking Smith and Marx? You need to explain - there are many people who influenced 19c thought - why are you mentioning these two? how are they connected to Darwin?
I don't really know; I didn't write that section, and intend to rewrite it when I get some time. Smith in particular is a little curious - I know I've seen references to Marx, Darwin, and Freud as the three most influential 19th-century thinkers, though I suppose swapping Smith for Freud makes sense given the time period being discussed (which is itself curious). I expect this will be rewritten after the aforementioned library trip. Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I know why Smith is included (Wealth of Nation and the division of the labor). I think it would be odd to include Freud since his ideas primarily influenced the twentieth century. It depends on what you want to say. Do you want to talk about thinkers who "profoundly influenced" the nineteenth century or the twentieth century? Awadewit16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a bit awkward to be talking about the 19th century so narrowly in the first paragraph of that section (it was more than half over when Darwin finally published, after all), especially since the subsections all focus on 20th-century thought. I don't propose including Freud here, but rather dethroning Smith and Marx; this should be very brief and general, not an intellectual history essay. There is also an extended series of articles on Darwin's reception and influence that are not well titled, but seem reasonably complete, and I'm fine with offloading most of the 'big' stuff to them. Opabinia regalis04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Interpretation of natural selection as necessarily 'progressive', leading to increasing 'advances' in intelligence and civilisation, was used as a justification for colonialism and policies of eugenics, as well as broader sociopolitical positions now described as Social Darwinism. - awkwardly worded
Extensions of the theory of natural selection to such a wide range of cultural phenomena have been distinctly controversial and are not widely accepted within most fields of cultural studies. - I don't think you mean "cultural studies." "Cultural studies" is a real subfield within history and literary studies and I have a feeling that many of its practitioners would accept the extension of natural selection into these other realms.
I think that's true in the sense that they don't oppose natural selection, and would grant that it has had influences on the emergence of human psychology; however, most of the theories thus far put forth under the sociobiology/evolutionary psychology umbrella have not been well received. (Particularly true for any theory involving the evolution of sex differences.) I think the wording is off; it's not that anyone opposes the idea of natural selection applying to human psychology, but that they oppose how it's been applied so far. Also, as far as I understand, the majority (but not the entirety) of this opposition has come from anthropologists. 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the opposition has come from scientists. Unfortunately, some people in the humanities have taken this idea and run with it (sad to say - I fight these battles all of the time). I just think that you shouldn't use the phrase "cultural studies" because to any humanities academic it signifies something totally different than what you mean. I actually do cultural studies and it is not this at all; it is a study of society that joins the techniques of history and literary studies (very loosely). Awadewit16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, anthropologists are scientists now? ;) I didn't realize 'cultural studies' had been claimed as a standalone term any more specific than 'the study of culture', but I just dropped the qualifier phrase altogether. Opabinia regalis04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think anthropologists are in between science and social science. Certainly many of them claim to be doing science and some of them are using much more scientific methods (data sets and all) than we would ever use in literary studies or history. I can tell you that literary scholars and historians think anthropology is something very different than what they do. Awadewit15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The "Social and psychological theory" section seems choppy and truncated. Is it necessary for this page which is really about scientific natural selection? Could there be a different page for all of these adaptations? :)
This will hopefully get better. It's sort of an odd union of topics at the moment, mixing early reactions that have completely lost their currency with much more recent work. I'm a little hesitant even to leave the two together (even though I put the new stuff there), given the fact that 'sociobiology' got accused of advocating eugenics and all sorts of terrible evils to the point where the word has completely fallen out of favor. Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
For FAC, you will probably want to include more citations. At least one per section!
Fortunately, I think, the tide seems to be shifting away from counting notes over there. I'll probably just put a note along with the Rice book and a (hopefully) forthcoming simpler text that they are solid works to consult for more information on the definitional stuff (fitness, genetical theory section). I could just repeat notes to Rice in every genetical theory subsection, but I don't think that really helps. Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it turning? The tides turn quickly, then. I would still think that you would want to be able to point readers to specific sections of a book on specific topics. Awadewit16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Done at the chapter level; this article just isn't 'granular' enough for specific pages to be pertinent, except as a restatement of definitions. Will definitely need a general text; in looking this up I skimmed a whole bucketload of unnecessary integrals. Opabinia regalis04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of more pictures? For example, of close alleles and far-away alleles or even just pairs of chromosomes? Awadewit04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
More pictures good. I hope to track one down for genetic linkage, which is kind of hard to visualize from a text description. I think you're right that a picture of a chromosome with a few arrows will help people concretize the descriptions of alleles and loci and whatnot. Opabinia regalis04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you so much for what may be the most detailed review I've ever seen on WP ;) This probably won't hit FAC for another couple of weeks, as I'm still busy in the real world, and I expect to be out of town next weekend. Opabinia regalis02:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Improving this article was long overdue. It's been hurting for a while now, but I finally got around to researching and rewriting it. I think people have found it confusing before, I'm wondering about its state now and if there are any suggestions for further improvement. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is a fair way from GA or FA, however, it's hard for me to see what needs improving about the article as I have edited it so much. We'd really appreciate outside comments on how to improve it :) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
At a glance, try to use sources related to WoW rather than trying to conjure explanations from unrelated sources (e.g. the references to Celtic, EQ2 druids). Not particularly attached to either the infoboxes or pics (There are only so many people in 8/8 Tier X sets). Nifboy00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The two sources you named were meant to provide sources for showing similarities World of Warcraft druids have with druids outside the game. If I removed those sources I'd have to remove that section. I only really added it in the first place because someone in the AfD said that they thought it would be nice if something like that would be included for the classes. I can prose-ify the infoboxes if you'd prefer - are you against pictures in general or just ones of characters in full sets or whatever? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's because "Druids outside WoW" has only a very tenuous connection to WoW; unless there's a significant link, wherein the link itself is stated in a source, you start drifting into original explanations. Blizzard could have been inspired by Druidism, D&D druids, EQ druids, or any combination of the above. The article is on, ultimately, WoW, so use WoW-related sources. Nifboy10:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would love some advice on how to improve this article and take this on the path to a featured status. I would like to get feedback on the whole article, but on the following sections in particular:
History
Academic Program
Student Life
Should I add any other sections? One section you might notice missing would be notable alumni. As this school will graduate its eighth class this May, I feel that it is too soon to start that section. Plus, I don't know of any prominent alumni. Feedback on the article is greatly appreciated.
Chrisfortier13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Susanlesch
This article is very well written and presented. A pleasure to read. And it deserves a higher rating. Two things might help it along and one of those is easy -- captialize only the first word in headings, for example, "The Beginning" becomes "The beginnning." Most important though, the article is perfectly cited in some parts but other parts are noticeably missing any inline citations. Or did I miss the pattern? Citations for everything will be required to reach GA and FA. Is there a way to cite every part of the article? Either an overall reference work to which all the uncited paras refer, or individual citations per sentence or paragraph would do the trick. By the way, the formatting of citations that are there seems to be very well done. I am not an expert but I think that once those refs are in place the article might pass GA as written. -Susanlesch02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks from Chrisfortier
Thank you very much for the feedback Susanlesch! I will work on what you suggested, strengthening the citations and formatting the titles. I appreciate your help. Chrisfortier14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Not sure how familiar Misplaced Pages users are with Alternate Reality games, but I've sort of run into some problems with the Perplex City article that I need feedback on. First of all there is the problem that there are two distinct parts of the Perplex City article - The huge plot section and the parts about the game. Because the game is going into another season that will have a different plot but a different set-up, I was considering moving the plot section (besides the "Background" part) to a separate article, but I'm not sure if there are other guidelines to adhere to.
Also, there is the problem about an ARG term known as "line-blurring". Line blurring is what "puppet masters" (people who run ARG's) attempt to do - to blur the line between fiction and reality. In reference to Perplex City, this would involve, for example, the fact that The Receda Cube is both a fictional artifact (it is not really a weapon or a religious artifact, those are only part of the story), but it is also a physical object that actually exists (but is only a metal cube). Characters aren't real, but their blog posts are. See the dilemma? This poses a problem in the plot section. It's hard to adhere to WP:FICT while remaining concise (Scarlet's blog said that, in the game, she was going to the town of Vindenbourg, a fictional city in the game.).
I did a recent semi-overhaul of the page. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an engineering college graduate who got A's in his physics classes and math classes. I know the power of using natural units and I appreciate using unitless dimensions. Hence the large section for the unitless properties of RD. Also, my physics proff. wanted us to demonstrate the hydrometer problem shown. I figured it was important enough to be encyclopedic. I've got a second proof, showing that a hyperbolic cross sectional area would create a linear relationship between displacement and change in RD, but decided it was not encyclopedic enough to warrant placing it on here. Since it required the use of calculus, I doubt most readers would understand it as well. (Also, I'm not quite an expert, as I've said before.)
If anyone has grammar issues, spelling issues, etc... change up the page. I'm not fammiliar with wikipedia's standard code of conduct as much as I'm sure everyone else out there is. I'm not a grammar expert, and I don't know how to program this math code for beans. If anyone thinks the math isn't important enough to warrant placing it there, let me know and I'll just put it on my talk page. I don't have any source for the proof I listed concerning the hydrometers, but I did cite other wiki pages which had sources and used basic algebra for my proof. --Markozeta01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What I'd like to see in this page.
I'd like to see some history of relative density. But I was terrible at history. Why is it called "specific gravity"? Doesn't that name seem contradictory?
I'd like to see someone talk about the uses of relative density in the Navier-Stokes Equation and other fluid equations where dimensionless quantities are usefull.
I'd like to see a better explanation (other then mine) about how relative density conveys more information then the actual density does itself. I just made that up by comparing the densities of iridium and lead.
I'd like an explanation of the Planck density and relative density. Obviously, if one took a density relative to the planck density, then the numbers would be incredibly small. My hypothesis is that the relative density with respect to the Planck density can not be greater then 1, or else the object becomes a black hole and physics as we know it ceases to exist around that object. But I can't prove that.
I'd like to see a resolution about sinking and floating. It's hard for me to grasp "water" being heavier then "oil". Even if I standardize it to "a liter of water" and "a liter of oil", it's still not easy to visualize. When I see it as "Oil floats on top of water", it sorta clicks and I realize that the water is heavier and sinks. Though it is true that for solids, there is no such thing as sinking and floating, for 2 outta the 3 states of matter commonly found on earth, it is true. And that should make it at least notable.
I'd like to see a difference between SG with comparison to air vs. SG with comparison to water. I think that should be at the top of the page. --Markozeta01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I recently obtained GA status for this article, and hoping for FA, with this being a logical step along the way.
I'm looking for a review on scientific verifiability, particularly from experts in the areas of biochemistry, etiology, and genetics. Also, any suggestions the community could make on reference formatting and prose would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance — Jack · talk · 06:50, Tuesday, 13 March 2007
I've now nominated it there, thanks or the heads-up. If there's anything that you could suggest here about prose, or other general improvements, that'd still be ace :) — Jack · talk · 11:36, Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Firstly all the bullet points need to be either incorperated into prose or into tables. Secondly the article really needs overall tightening, as several points are repeated in various sections. It actually needs to be reorganized entirely. "History" should rather be something like "History of human consumption" or something, as you hardly give the evolutionary history of Vitamin C in that section. Then you can move the "Daily dosage requirements" under that etc. Also see if there any non-dietary uses of Vitamin C worth mentioning (preservitive, etc.)--BirgitteSB 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved history up, and converted a whole bunch of bullets to prose. There are non-dietary uses of the vitamin, and they're mentioned in the third paragraph of the intro. I can totally see what you mean about repetitive info, and it's been mentioned before. Trying to fix it now, let me know what you think — Jack · talk · 20:03, Friday, 16 March 2007
I will re-read it completely this weekend; but two qick points. 1) WP:LEAD say that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. Everything in the intro (i.e. non- dietarty uses) needs to be followed up in more detail in the article. 2)The "See Also" section is huge. This section is supposed to only hold things which are not yet covered in the article. Featured Articles do not have a "See Also" section at all as everything should be incorperated into the article by that stage.--BirgitteSB 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Feedback
Hi Jrockley. I originally checked out the article because I saw the request for scientific review; I was forwarded to this page for discussion. I think the article on the whole is solid, but there is one statement in it that gives me pause. I've started a discussion of this on the article's talk page. Briefly, my concern is with a sentence in the introductory paragraph that presents one side of a controversial topic. This statement is factual, but its location and its meaning are such that it biases the reader. The intro paragraph would be just as good without this sentence, but if it is to be left in, I have suggested adding an additional sentence to reference the mainstream scientific point of view, too. Sorry for making this comment so long - jump to the talk page and you'll see my analysis. Antelan01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you find a cover that is at least closer to the time and place of original publication? I'm not a stickler for first editions but that picture is silly. The page is supposed to be about Goethe's book after all. Let's try to put it in historical context, please.
Also, the novel was not published in Germany. Germany did not exist as a nation until at least the middle of the nineteenth century. You might check where Goethe originally had it published.
Do you have a reference for the climactic scene being the poems? I would tend to think that the climactic scene would be the suicide. Statements like that tend to be a matter of personal interpretation. Be careful with them.
The lead should be a three-paragraph (or so) summary of the article. WP:LEAD
leaves after a great embarassment - mention what it is
You need to have scholarly sources for your material, such as the claims that the book is partly autobigraphical and had a wide cutural impact. See WP:CITE
The cultural impact section could be greatly expanded. This book had a dramatic impact on writers at the end of the eighteenth century. "Everyone" read it, as they say. It influenced Romanticism in England and Sturm and Drang in the german states. That should all be there. Also, I would suggest that you have a section explaining what literary scholars have written about the book.
Honestly this is not ready for peer review but I wanted to point you at Google Books which will have a wealth of full view critical resources for a book of the age. This article needs LOTS of work, but follow what the sources have to say most often and it should be easy to see what points are important to get across. Also you need to get a free content image for the info box. There should be many public domain possibilities This is almost certainly PD.--BirgitteSB 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I want this article to reach GA, but I've been working on it for too long and I need other people's advice. I'm not sure all the references are reliable, but I've exhausted Google resources, so ideas are welcome and any feedback appreciated. Please note that I'm not a native English speaker and that I'm a newcomer, so I might have done some basic mistakes - but I'm eager to learn. Thank you.Rosenknospe10:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Article has seen fairly big changes in recent months and has expanded and improved a lot. Over time, I hope it can become a featured article. Some specific areas of attention are references (are there things that still need references, are the references used ok?) and the human culture section. Are some of the entries perhaps too trivial? Are important appearances in human culture left out? But obviously, ALL comments are welcome and as always, edit where you see fit yourself! BabyNuke22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it! - apart from the taxonomy and long list of dolphins which kinda screws up how the whole page looks. Couldn't that be moved to its own page? Think outside the box13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I believe it's one of the things more commonly looked up in the article so it'd be nice to have that in the same page. BabyNuke20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, but could it be moved to the end of the article. I just feel that I'd rather see some pictures of dolphins and how they basically are, before we get more specific. Think outside the box11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the current location. I suppose however, some photos could be put next to the species list as examples of various dolphins? BabyNuke12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments a quick look over showed some promising material but also some causes of concern.
TOC is a mess, frankly. Headings like Genetic evolution and anatomy of dolphins with only one subheading? Break it up with more conventional subheadings. In fact, evolution, taxonomy and genetics should be separate from anatomy/morphology and sense. Likewise more subheadings for behaviour (breeding, play, feeding, social organisation,). Consolidate threats, role in culture and other like things as subheadings of one section called Releationship with humans.
I agree that the species list should be moved to the botom. Most TOL articles folllow this convention.
I see no "convention" here. In the deer article it's roughly in the middle, in the porpoise article it is at the top, in the bird article it is also at the top, in the Cetacea article it is at the bottom. BabyNuke14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dolphins entered the water roughly fifty million years ago. Dolphins' ancestors maybe?
Unlike most mammals, dolphins do not have hair, but they are born with a few hairs around the tip of their rostrum which they lose after some time adult dophins do not have hair perhaps?
Origin of name aka etemology can be moved to relationship with humans. Start with biology, then move onto human-dolphin aspects.
I would agree, but some other things are clarified in this section also which help in understanding the article, namely which definition of the word is used. BabyNuke14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In this article, the second definition is used. which refers to Any member of the families Delphinidae and Platanistoidea (oceanic and river dolphins), , yet the taxobox only has Delphinidae. Which is it?
Six species in the family Delphinidae are commonly called "whales" but are strictly speaking dolphins. They are sometimes called "blackfish". A dolphin by any other name would still smell as fishy. If this is an article about the family Delphinidae (and Platanistoidea) then include these 6 species as any other in the taxonomic list.
They are in the taxonomic list already, these are just given special attention as mistakes are commonly made with them. BabyNuke14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dolphins are often regarded as one of Earth's most intelligent species, That should be some dolphin species are egarded as amongst the worlds most intellegent animals or something. Dolphins aren't a species.
In behaviour... the section begining Because of their capacity for learning, dolphins have been employed by humans for many purposes can probably go with the sectin on human-dolphin interactions rather than behaviour.
Hello, I would like to have a community peer review on this article done, based on it's compliancy with established, written policy, and also for the linguistic feel/style/wording of it. thank you. - Denny19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The incident is still too new, in my opinion, for it to have settled on a form which would be eligible for peer review; it is barely one week old. However, it does seem to follow our written principles of NPOV and ATT, in that all statements of merit are sourced, and that the prose is written from neither an apologists nor villifier's point of view. Whitewashing/bowlderization is as much a POV violation as is defamation. We have sources, we bring them accurately, and we refrain from editorial comment. At this point, the article should be allowed to evolve, and perhaps three months from now, when it is semi-stable, it could undergo a more complete peer review. -- Avi19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but as 1 to 3 people are so vocal still in the content choices, I want to do this now, and have more people avaluate where we are and where best go, then bring it back again in 2-3 months to build on that and aim for Good Article status... - Denny19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is in serious need of oversight. Any attempt to organize the article is being revoked. A few minor adjustments to the sections will improve the quality of the article. I have attempted to organize the sections but to no avail. The images were removed without consensus. Previously, many editors wanted to pictures to remain in the article. I have made comments on the talk page without collaboration. More editors are welcome to participate and read the comments in the talk page. Please help. For more detailed information read my comments on the article's talk page. Thank you. QuackGuru20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this peer review was first put up, it has changed considerably. Most issues have been thrashed out, consensus reached, and the article could do with another review. Several editors on the talk page have expressed a wish for the article to reach FA status; pointers for how to reach that would be gratefully received. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It's very difficult to write so soon after a events. The editors at this page have my thanks for their efforts. Yet even if all other elements were perfect I don't think this article could qualify for FA yet because of stability and comprehensiveness issues. The long term impact hasn't happened yet. Durova06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
One glaring omission is that the article by Michael Snow and Andrew Lih from The Signpost is not referenced. In the context of this article, it is probably a more reliable source than any of the mainstream media publications, and includes original reporting. It would be a mistake to exclude it simply because the article is being written on Misplaced Pages; were it written on a different hypothetical wiki encyclopedia that follows our policies, it would most certainly be a valid source.--ragesoss07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
While I see your point, one problem there is that if the signpost is reliable, then it brings up the very relevant question of why my personal observation (or a userspace essay/report I wrote on the subject) wouldn't be. After all, I and most of the other editors on the page where there when the on-wiki blowup happened. If nothing else I agree that we should include it as a related link, like we have Essjay's user talk. --tjstrftalk22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My view on the subject is that WP:SIGNPOST is held to be reliable by its relevant readers, whereas a personal userspace essay on the subject wouldn't. I'm also in two minds myself on this matter. CloudNine16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting, if obscure topic. This article is easily the single most comprehensive source on the subject on the web, and possibly in print too. I think it's in pretty good shape, considering the subject is the music of a tiny island with virtually no historical documentation, international acclaim, scholarly study or web presence. Anyway, suggestions welcome! I'd like to move this on to WP:FAC in the near future, so please let me know if you know of any information to add. Thanks, Tuf-Kat16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just saying I'm working on typing a long commentary. So far, the content looks fine, but the writing could really use some slicking. Circeus15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Avoiding a link inside the bolded title would be good.
If Music of the Lesser Antilles is any hint, you probably don't need to bold "Lucian music" (it's not an "alternative name", more a grammatical variant)
I'd recommend "in Saint Lucia" (it's a country) over "on Saint Lucia"
Too much "especially"s in the lead.
The lead should probably be divided in three paragraphs,not two as it currently is. The way the first paragraph strings facts verges on the nonsensical.
The article lacks an historical overviews. Small bits across the articles have historical reflexions, but it's hard to have a picture about what styles where popular when.
Folk music
You start with "Lucian" in the lead, but "Saint Lucian" afterwards.
"based around" usually refer to a smaller subset. The list given easily constitutes a full band.
owever, the kwadril is increasingly viewed as a national symbol.
There doesn't seem to be a pertinent reason to use "however" here.
That paragraph mixes elements about dances and musical styles. Since the dances and their associated musical style are not discussed specifically, these two elements should be kept more separate.
jwé
You would probably do better merging jwé here. I realize that thearticle is brodly linked, which probably means that the section should be shortened slightlyand the bulk of it moved into the separate article.
Linking both as a "Main article" and in the firsts sentence is redundant.
'jwé chanté (sung songs) and jwé dansé (song-play-dance)
How interesting! Such things as "unsung songs" exist? And what is a "song-play-dance"??
their use of call-and-response singing between a leader and a chorus, with the exception of listwa,
dashes or parentheses would be more appropriate here.
You don't need to repeat the parenthetical definitions.
The last part makes it clear that débòt is a part of jwé (specifically jwé dansé), not the other way around,as implied at the beginning of the section (cf. above about débòt).
Overall, the section is poorly organized. A firmer instruments/substyles/dances division would help.
kwadril
Same merge as above suggested.
The modern kwadril has declined in popularity; it had come to be seen as a symbol of colonialism around the time of independence, and was shunned as old-fashioned and out-of-date.
This sentence is rather clunky. The semicolon is probably superfluous.
Learners act as a sort of apprentice for more established performers.
Act as X to Y
A successful performance brings respect and prestige for all participants who dance the correct steps which are traditionally said to "demonstrate control over behavior, manner, and skills" and "symbolize... a set of special values linked with a higher social class".
Run-on relatives...
are the lakonmèt and the mazurka the same thing or not??
latwiyèm fidji fixed this typo.
rose and marguerite
With only 3 other incoming link, this one can definitely be merged here for the time being.
La Rose and La Marguerite are rival societies that commemorate the Anglo-French heritage of the island; the factions represent the warring colonial powers, between whose hands Saint Lucia changed fourteen times.
It should be made clear what type of societies they are. Cultural societies? Learned societies? Or something closer to the arab world's tariqahs?
Also, that sentence is poorly built.
Both societies draw on English royalty traditions and have a number of positions, including the King, Queen, Prince, Princess and various lower titles like the Chief of Police and nurse.
Why is "nurse" not capitalized?
One redundant word in the two first.
La Rose and La Marguerite meet once weekly except during Lent.
I'd think weekly meeting do occur only once a week.
At these meetings, which are on Saturday for La Rose and Sunday for La Marguerite, members sing or play instruments and dance.
It,s not clear whether the last part is intended to split, or describe all meetings: parsing as "sing or play instrument, and dance" comes more naturally in this context.
earlier, it was vaguely implied that the lakonmèt can be substituted to parts of a kwadril, but here it's clearly made to be an entirely different dance. that needs to be cleared up.
other styles
Just making sure: is "merry-go-round" pointing to the right article?
Lucian drinking songs are the chanté abwè, which are rarely performed in recent years.
Why "the" chanté abwé? And "recent years"? Not exactly the best word choices
Chanté abwè are performed in a game in which the singers
Less than ideal stringing of prepositions
performed one couple with a leader and chorus
funereal
looks like a word's missing
in contrast to other Caribbean islands, which hold their wakes on the first and ninth days
Wow, wordy mcwordiness: "whereas other Caribbean islands hold theirs on the first and ninth days"
accompanied zo or tibwa and ka.
Missing word
the images makes it difficult to spot the location of wherever the places are right away.
The villages of La Grace, Piaye and Laborie in the southwest area of Saint Lucia
Missing commas
the paragraph switches from past to present.
Kélé
Yet another ridiculously short "sub article"
"region" is a wee bit sweeping term for a country the size of Laval and Montreal combined...
Only one family, from Resina, in modern Saint Lucia claims to have the religious authority to perform and pass on the kélé rituals.
My mind reads this and expects a "still" somewhere
these are the adan, èrè, koudou and kèré rhythms.
Use a colon and drops "these are"
Kélé rituals also include singing and dance
"Singing and dancing" or "songs and dances"
The following enumeration? way too long and complex.
Popular music
"found through" should be "found throughout" or "found across"
Music scholar Jocelyne Guilbault has called calypso the primary way modern Lucians "express social commentary"
The placeen of the quotation marks looks off. This probably needs to be recast.
Along with calypso, Lucia has
Saint Lucia has...
mostly on 45-RPM
If grammophone record is any indication, this probably should be "45 rpm"
That sentence does not connect well with the following one, and the paragraph seems mostly redundant to the "government and industry" section below. If its not, then the latter section probably needs to be re-titled.
Roots revival
I'm really not fond of a section having only a subsection. It can probably integrate into the parent section or an historical outlook.
I wasn't able to trace what the "1969 Expo in Grenada" was, but it's definitely not a World's fair: there was none in 1969. Also, "1969" appears twice in that sentence.
The section is odd, because there is no indication that the "revival" was preceded by a decline... Which leads me to recommend the whole "popular music" (by the article's own admission, St.Lucia has little Pop music proper, and no industry) be completely rewritten to an history overview.
Government and industry
Section is poorly organized, and hardly reflects its header.
The 2005 festival was a boost for the local music industry
Is there or is there no music industry in St. Lucia?
Education
change the header to "musical education" or something similar
Music is a part of the curriculum at public schools in Saint Lucia; it has long been taught in younger grade levels
No semicolon, break the sentence.
Primary education on Saint Lucia, music and other artistic education is commonly used incidentally to teaching other subjects or for special occasions.
Looks like you started a sentence and finished a different one.
while others spent more time on general group singing
while the remaining spend
Many of the schools that do not normally instruct in music may offer volunteer clubs
drop the "may"
Many Lucian schools have formed ensembles, most commonly a wind ensemble (30% of schools), or a steelpan band (20%) or combo group (20%).
Stringed "or"s
both for the benefit of all students and the enrichment of the musically-gifted among them.
Currently listed as a Good article but needs other sets of eyes to look over it, particularly as it only has one major editor to date. I'm working this towards FA and need advice on what is wrong or missing - Peripitus(Talk)11:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
On the whole, this article looks really good. A few comments:
You may want to the change the table style to "wikitable" - it'll look nicer. See Help:Table.
fixed
It might be worth coverting the timeline into a table; see how other articles of a similar nature handle it.
Converted. Does seem to look better with the preceeding table.
Where's Adelaide? (I know where it is, but many readers might not). Add a note in the lead; perhaps after the first instance of the town's name?
Fixed - works better now as I've split the opening sentence into two and noted where adelaide is.
Check WP:MOSNUM. I have a feeling numbers such as "50" should be in word form. A minor point, however.
After reading the style manual on this I've made it consistent, using the words except in places like "expanding to 90 trams and 650 horses" where numerals and letters don't mix well
Could Kensington Gardens have it's own article? I'm not sure if Kensington Gardens (and John Stephenson Co., etc.) is a proper use of italics according to the manual of style. You may want to check usage of italics throughout the whole text.
Changed the sentence about the gardens. Looking at a map it's never going to have it's own article although it will be mentioned eventually in the associated suburb's one. Fixed the italics, as I couldn't find anywhere they were used per the style manual I've taken them out
Great Depression should be capitalized.
fixed
"Until purchased by the government, all horse tram operations were by private companies with the only government involvement the passing of legislation enabling line construction." Sentence doesn't flow too well. Could you rephrase?
Now reads "Until 1907, all horse tram operations were by private companies, with the government passing legislation authorising line construction". The line as written was poor and contained redundant parts.
tax exempt -> tax-exempt. This might only occur once in the text.
Fixed - only occurred once that I can find
Could you sum up what "turning of the sod" means? Also, it shouldn't be in italics.
Changed this to "official ceremony starting track construction" and removed the italics. Turning of the sod was a common phrase for the ceremonial digging up the first bit of grass during a construction project, but it is probably not widely used.
Changes
There's some punctuation missing, especially before/after footnotes. I've caught the ones I've seen. Check reference positioning also.
I think I've caught all of this now but will not strike this out until sure.
According to WP:MOSNUM, "fifty eight" -> "fifty-eight".
fixed
"Open cross-bench trams with no weather protection on the side of the cars they became unpopular during inclement weather." This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, even after "placing" a comma in the middle of it.
that line was awful ! Changed to "They were open trams, with no weather protection on the side of the cars, and passengers seated on cross-benches"
"Victoria square" -> "Victoria Square" surely?
fixed
Off topic, but the pictures and diagrams would be useful on Wikimedia Commons; you could then add a {{commons}} link in the External Links section.
This article might need to be checked for grammar mistakes (I'm not a native English speaker). References (especifically notes) seem to be disorganized. Perhaps the article can be shortened a bit. Let me know what do you think about it. Dalobuca05:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of grammatical issues that need attention. It might be easiest if I simply fixed the smaller ones rather than produced a list of small changes needed and brought larger issues back here. Are you happy with that? Ben MacDui(Talk)17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We're looking to nominate this for Good Article sometime soon. Are there any problems we should clear up beforehand? In particular, does the reception section look okay? Are the other various sections well-explained? Is it generally clear what we're doing here? :) Thanks for your time. --Masamage02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! I totally forgot about the image-work. I'll get that done this afternoon when I'm on my own computer. --Masamage19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I shrunk the Senshi image, added the Fair Use stuff for everything, and now we're working on hunting down sources for the logos. --Masamage18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at cult television, Sailor Moon is listed as an example of cult TV - if we could reference that and add it into reception, then maybe it might cut down on some of the confusion of the bit where Sailor Moon is popular, yet unpopular. Do we need to expand on the whys and wherefores of Sailor Moon being compared with Barbie and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? Anne Allison's chapter in particular discusses MMPR as a success localisation story compared to PSSM. From hanging around GA/R for a while, I can say that sections without any inline citations are looked upon badly.-Malkinann20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's some suggestions:
In the lead, in the last paragraph, video games is linked as ], when it should be linked as ]s. The word tokusatsu is linked, but not explained; you did well explaining where the term "Sailor" originates.
This article needs to go through copyediting to remove weasel words, such as the word "many" in the last paragraph in the lead; just how many are there?
In the "Story" section, you introduce Usagi Tsukino without presenting her as the main protagonist. I know she is, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Try to start the section from an out of universe perspective, such as "Sailor Moon's story begins with the main heroine..."
In the beginning of the Characters section, knowing that they are in order of appearance may be considered trivia that does not necessariy need to be known. The next thing said is to check the individual character articles, but all the names are linked and bolded, so this is obvious without this notice; the western-order of names notice has been phased out of most articles and it's become common (especially with the WP:MOS-JP) to name Japanese names in western ordering, so this too I think can be taken out. Also, bullets make it look too listy, and lists tend to be looked down upon in potential GA articles. There are two alternatives: 1) Write in a paragraph or two where you go through all the main characters by name and what they do, or 2) Write it in ;]: format and expand some to make it more readable and less listy.
In the manga section, the phrase "nearly a dozen" is used; try to be as specific as you can get; again, avoid weasel words. Next, you link Nakayoshi; point out that it's a shōjo manga magazine. While I realize there is a main article for the manga, the manga was still the source material and thus should be a worthwhile section on this page. First, it's best not to leave lone sentences, as is with the end of this section (which is also missing a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi"). Possibly try to expand this section a bit more. I say this since the Anime section below it is much larger, yet the manga came first and thus should be of more focus.
In the Anime section, the phrase, "Sailor Moon has since become one of the most famous anime properties in the world." is unsourced; either tag with {{fact}} or find a source; otherwise remove it. In the third paragraph, the word "numerous" is used; be specific. You're missing a comma in this paragraph in the final sentence between "North America" and "only"; copyedit the article for grammar as well as with spelling. The next sentence, "All of Sailor Moon was animated traditionally" seems odd to me; possibly reword it. There are 5 links in this section that do not have pages, all of them people. I'm sure with a series this popular there is at least a minor amount of info somewhere on them, possibly at Anime News Network or the Japanese wiki I find is always a good resource. GA and FA articles should have very little red linked pages, or none at all. Consider making stubs for all the red linked pages in this article.
In the English adaptations section, there are two unsourced lines; GA articles should have none of these.
In External links, the {{ja icon}} should be placed at the end of the link.
This article is specifically deficiant in categories. I know of at least 5-10 that would work well. Try to look at other articles that have similar genres and try to include as manga categories as possible. This makes the scope of an article look greater and more important.
Lastly, the number of inline citations is centered in the Reception section, with only 9 of the 24 being used in the article; there are sections without citations that need them, though I believe this has already been adressed.
Take care of all these things, put it through some rigorous copyediting, and the article should improve greatly.--十八00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've been pluggin' away at this. Let's see what we've got.
Fixed everything you mentioned in the lead, story, and character sections. The character bits look weird in this format; one long, skinny line each. No more info can be removed, and I hesitate to add much more; what would you suggest?
Expanded the manga section and removed its weasel words. Does it need anything more? I also disagree about adding that comma. :P Some comma uses are required, some are forbidden, and some are a matter of taste.
Fixed almost everything in the anime article. I ended up just relegating most of the redlinked people to the anime page itself and leaving them out here. I also really don't want to replace the word 'numerous' with something more specific, because just about every song was written by two or three people, and hunting down all the overlap would be an absolute nightmare. Not sure what to do about that.
I believe I have some sources for the English adaptations section and will plug them in.
Fixed the external links thing.
Category:Sailor Moon is in a ton of categories, so we just put this one into it. Is that not the way to do things?
Sorry for the late reply; for some reason I didn't see the update.
Re: Characters; I agree, which is why I suggested you add more to the characters section than just one liners. I've done this before in the Kanon and Air (visual novel) articles, so I don't think it's too much to ask for a little bit of expansion. It would also be more useful for the readers who don't want to leave this article to learn more, but having read enough feel satisfied with what is supplied.
My suggestion for a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi" had nothing to do with taste; a comma should be there because due to the way the sentence is worded, it's more natural to pause at "completed".
Re: Anime; all right, it's fine then to keep "numerous" if nothing else will fit. I'm just saying, it might come up again in the future with a different reviewer.
Final note: A lot of good work has been done, but it still needs work. I think I have exhausted my reviewing abilities for this article as I beleive I've adressed all the salient points for a GA promotion. Perhaps try to get another neutral editior who is involved with WP:Anime to add suggestions.--十八11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
correctly
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). <-- This may be where we talk about how, with the anime, they are correctly termed series(es) as opposed to seasons, as this has come up on Talk:Sailor Moon once or twice, maybe we should find something to cite this.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
The series/season reference is actually the Wikilink itself, somewhere in there, to an article explaining the difference and the tendancy to misuse the terms. --Masamage06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You sure? clicking on metaseries gives me "The series Tenchi Muyo! and Sailor Moon have been comics, multiple TV series, and movies, but they do not have a rigid single continuity. Though the latter does have Continuity within the same form of media.", which doesn't explain it to me, and clicking on seasons gives me an idea that each 'cours' of Sailor Moon should be only 13 episodes long, which clearly isn't the case! -Malkinann07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Rar, it's the second one, but it's been modified since I last looked at it. The relevance is not as clear now. :/ --Masamage07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put a {{clarifyme}} on that part because it's come up on the talk page a couple of times. If we can find a reference, then we could put it on the TV program article. -Malkinann07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Tamilnet is a controversial but an essential news website that is a source of information on the current Sri Lankan civil war particularaly from minoritySri Lankan Tamil perspective. It is used extensively by the BBC, Reuters, AP and others as a source. There are controversies associated with this web site. Would need peer review on WP:RS and WP:NPOV on this article RaveenS18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
RJHall
There are too many one-paragraph sections in the body, making the table of contents longer than is needed. Please consider consolidation, or else try to expand the content. There are some issues with the citations and the placement of punctuation. (Punctuation should preceed the citations.) You've also got double-punctuation (..) in one instance. Finally the "Media view" section has an extra blank line. — RJH (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I can offer three suggestions and one comment. The first suggestion is to replace multiple citations of the same reference with "terminated empty ref tags" (<ref name="name"/>) as detailed here and as implemented with the first two references here (an arbitrary example). Although this will not affect the appearance of the article to readers, it should make editing easier in the edit window. The only drawback to this method is that editors must be vigilant not to delete the one instance of the reference that does contain the full citation details (it's alright to move the full citation, but deleting it will render the other terminated empty ref tags useless). My second suggestion is to avoid over-citing in the main text. For instance, every sentence in the second paragraph of the "Perceptions" section is cited to the same source. I think it would improve the article's appearance to instead have one citation at the end of the paragraph. This is, however, only a general suggestion and should be considered in light of this article's particular circumstances (for instance, it may be necessary to cite every single sentence to deal with serious content disputes). My third suggestion is to be consistent in referring to TamilNet throughout the article (including the title). Is the correct name TamilNet or Tamilnet? The comment I have pertains to the first paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section. It does not read as neutral and I cannot think of a way to make it so. The only thing I can suggest is to move the quote by V. Sambanandan into the "Perceptions" section, delete the first paragraph entirely, and considering renaming that section to "Operations" or "Background" or something similar. I hope I've helped. Cheers, Black Falcon19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Multiple citations replace with ref name terminator -Done
Over citation of the main text -Done
Change title to TamilNet and use it throughout -Done
Move Sambandans comments to Perception section - Done
Delete first paragraph - Done
Rename section to Operations - Done
Sharz
I only have two major issues with the article. The first is the poor intergration of setences, it is quiet visable where a user has added a paragraph, and another user has tagged on a setences, for example in the first paragraph, "Tamilnet is considered to be pro-LTTE", perhaps that could be better integrated into another sentence, or the spacing between the paragraph and that line be removed. My second issue of less importance is that, are all the cat's possible included? --Sharz23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I find nothing wrong with the article. NPOV, short, good.
I just don't know what the last sentence about Karuna's alleged connections to the government has to do with the topic TamilNet. Krankman14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Done
after it's used in equation ... grr; this is where I miss equation numbers. 
(NB: you define it later, but it should be defined where it's first used)
where q is the deviation from equilibrium, such as the spring extension ... and k is ...? It's the 
? If not, why not?
restricted to integer values, or is it any real number?
or just 
for Boltzmann's constant, rather than using both variably. This is especially important here, where you use k to also refer to the spring constant.
Not doneStill to be done... 
