Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2007

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

---

Languedoc wine

This article is the

]

Isaac

I would like to raise the quality of this article up to the FA quality. I would appreciate any feedback, in particular those concerning the sections that need expansion and the missing information from the article. Thank you very much. --Aminz 10:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

This is a good start. I am no Biblical scholar, but I am familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures. Here are my suggestions:

• I noticed that most of your sources are other encyclopedias. Because encyclopedias summarize and omit information, these are not the best sources from which to construct an article. You want to read as much about the topic as possible and then decide yourself how to summarize the material. Simply imitating other encyclopedic entries is not, I believe, what wikipedia is trying to do.
  WP:ATT
• The "Etymology and meaning" section would be hard to understand for someone not already familiar with the Biblical story. Spell out what you mean in more detail.
• The "Hebrew Bible" section in which you retell the story surrounding Isaac could be revised. The writing is choppy and needs more detail.
• The writing throughout the article is choppy. Paragraphs do not cohere and there are few transitions between paragraphs.
• You need to carefully reread each section. You have some sentence fragments and incorrect pronoun referents. You might consider sending this to the
  League of Copyeditors
  .
• In the "Academic view" section, you need to identify the academics. Who are these scholars (essentially, why should we listen to them)? Also, that section needs to be expanded.
• The "Testament" section should also be expanded - more details!
• What about including a section on Isaac in art and culture? Paintings, plays, etc.?
  Awadewit 06:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks very much for the review and your good suggestions.

1. Regarding the sources, that's true. Most of them are encyclopedias, but I tried to read various Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of the Bible for a good coverage. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the relevant literature.

Could you go to a library and read some books?

Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

2. I have revised the "Etymology and meaning" section. I hope it is more understandable now.

I would say, no.

• The Hebrew term Yiṣḥāq literally means "may God smile." - This is the first sentence. If the reader doesn't know Hebrew, it is not clear that the word you are referring to is the Hebrew word for "Isaac."
• The term conforms to a well-known Northwest Semitic type - type of what?
  • The source didn't give further details about the linguistic type the term conforms with. I'll try to find more details or otherwise would remove this sentence. --Aminz 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Ugaritic texts from thirteenth century BCE refer to the benovolent smile of the Canaanite god El." - where is this quotation from? you should have the inline citation right next to it - also, why are we suddenly talking about a smiling God?
• According to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism (Bible), however, the laugher is ascribed to Isaac's mother(Sarah), who was amazed to learn by God that she would have a child despite her age. - ("laughter") - what laughter? unless the reader knows the story ahead of time, these sentences are going to be very confusing
• (Sarah was ninety years old, and Abraham (Isaac's father) was hundred years old[4])[3] Abraham had also covertly laughed upon hearing the promise from God. - poor use of parantheses - very confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the story
• The section needs to make explicit the connection between God's smile and the Biblical story (that's where you need a source - scholars will have theories on these things). Right now, the sentences are not really connected together and assume too much knowledge on the reader's part.
  Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for making that clear. I have made some changes. I hope it is more understandable now. --Aminz 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. I am not a native speaker unfortunately. I asked help from the League of Copyeditors.

That's what they are for.

Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

5. I have found who these scholars are. Sorry, that it took a long time (I couldn't get anything by just googling for their name). --Aminz 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. I started the section. --Aminz 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor

At a glance:

• Inline citations aren't really needed in the intro unless you are making some extraordinary claims. As the intro should usually provide a good summary of the topic, most of the information and citations should appear somewhere else in the article.
• The section titles seemed a bit vague to me, I keep looking for a 'Life', or 'Early years' section and I got nothing.
• Could use some peer reviewed, scholarly sources, as well as the prominent views of theologians.
• The templates in the genealogy section are distracting, perhaps include them as footers.
• The external links in the body of the article are undesirable and unnecessary.
• Along the same lines, it is probably not necessary to list every reference to Isaac in holy literature.
• The last half of the article doesn't have very many Wikilinks, though it is hard to tell with all of the external linking in the text.

Hope that helps some. IvoShandor 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much.

1. I fixed these.

2. It is a good suggestion. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the works of Christian or Jewish theologians. Will add one once I found.

3. I moved the template down.

4. I removed some of the inline links and will remove several others.

5. I removed the list to every reference to Isaac in holy literature.

6. Done. --Aminz 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter fandom

The main concerns at the article's failed FAC were that the article did not correctly describe the extent of the fandom, and that at times it confused the "fandom" with the "popularity" of HP. I feel that I've cleaned these parts up since then, and I hope that, after the results of this PR, I can resend the article to FAC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

review

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
  [?]
  •  Done Though the lead is slightly shorter than three or four paragraphs, it still adequately and concisely summarizes the rest of the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There may be an applicable
  [?]
  (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  •  Done No applicable infobox.
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  [?]
  •  Done There is no trivia section.
• Watch for
  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.”
    •  Done Removed redundancies.
• The script has spotted the following contractions: haven't, isn't, weren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  •  Done Within quotations. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
  [?]

You may wish to browse through

]

Beijing

I would like to receive some feedback on the Beijing article, even though I have not contributed to it, but will be trying to spend roughly a week editing Beijing and Beijing-related pages, possibly leading to a featured article and hopefully a Beijing portal in time for the Olympics.

Especially I am interested in comments on the amount of interwiki links, article length, possible overlong sections that justify a own page and required rewrites and missing information. Poeloq 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most glaring problem is the complete lack of referencing. I see hardly a single inline citation. There are other issues, like the tendency for too many lists. But references are desperately needed here. Harryboyles 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it really is quite unsourced. I have some books ordered from

our library and will see that I can update and source the data/facts I have/find. Thanks! Poeloq 08:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Alizée

This article had a peer review earlier which has been archived.

The article has also had a self-review by the main contributors. Its a bit old but still is relevant to the current state of the article, in some parts. It can be accessed at Talk:Alizée/Review.

The article has changed a lot since its last peer review and is currently a

]

I m game Ekna 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this does not seem to be generating any activity, I think I will take this to FAC. --soum (0_o) 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer Olympics bids

I recently fixed this page up from the semi-mess that it was in to the state it is currently in. It received GA status not too long ago, and I'm looking to see what more I should do with it before possibly nominating it for FA. I think all the content is there (although I may be wrong) but I'm probably looking more for organization, etc. Please comment as much or as little as you want on anything you want. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JHMM13

This article looks really nice and I congratulate you for your good job. Here are a few issues I can see right off the bat without reading it through:

1. Try to incorporate the title of the article somewhere into the first paragraph better than it currently is. Here is my suggestion, but you can do another one, obviously. Also, I don't think you need to mention that London is in the UK. If it's good enough for Wikipedia to directly link to London, UK when you type London into the search bar, it's good enough to be on a first-name basis with the city for the FA.

   Five cities made the shortlist with their bids to host the 2012 Summer Olympics (formally known as the Games of the XXX Olympiad), which were awarded to London on July 6, 2005.

2. The lead could probably be a little longer encompassing some more of the general information from the article. Mention something about the controversies that show up later in the article.
3. The entire evaluation of applicant cities section could use a few references, even if the stuff is referenced in the articles you point to. Even if you just throw in a ref to the committee website, that's good enough.
4. Reference the "Final selection process" paragraphs
5. "Potential applicant cities" needs to be referenced more.
6. If you can, try to find some non internet references. It's been practically a year now, right? I'm sure some other info is out there or even primary sources like bid pamphlets or other such things.

This is all I've got right now. If I have time, I'll come back and read it thoroughly to help you out. JHMM13 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parutakupiu

Hi, Jared! Let's see what I can find that can be target of improvement. At first, I really like the article layout and visual content (very colourful and graphical).

• Lead:

1. As per JHHM13, try to adjust the first paragraph so that the article's title is displayed in a better way. Try moving the 3rd sentence, which begins with "The bids for the 2012 Olympics...", to the first sentence, turning it into "The bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics were...". Not only the tight and multiple-round voting but also the global importance of the five candidate cities (four capital cities!) accounted for this exciting election.
2. Take off the bold from "Games of the XXX Olympiad", since the article isn't exactly about the games itself (it would be correct if this was 2012 Summer Olympics).
3. IOC is not linked on the first instance.
4. "...which were awarded to London (United Kingdom), on 6 July 2005." → remove date because it's again mentioned below, together with the 117th Session.
5. Second paragraph → "...the top five progressed to the shortlist, becoming official candidate cities" (suggestion). Also, mention which were the other 4 cities that didn't make it.
6. How about mentioning that London won over Paris by only 4 votes? This strengthens the competitive feeling of this election.
7. "frontrunner" → front-runner.
8. In general, expand the lead, taking more information from the article (e.g. controversies).

• Evaluation of applicant cities

1. "...application for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games..." → 2012 Summer Olympic Games.
2. "The five highest-rated candidates..." → applicant cities (only candidates after shortlisted).
3. "...granted the right to use the Olympic flame and Olympic rings imagery in their campaign literature." → isn't it only the Olympic rings and the expression "Candidate City/Ville Candidate"?

• Evaluation of candidate cities

1. "...submitted their candidate file..." → candidature file.
2. Link "International Olympic Committee" only on the previous section, and unlink further instances. Same goes for the candidate cities.
3. "set-backs" → setbacks.
4. "IOC member" →
   IOC member
   .

• Final selection process

1. Try this for the first sentence → "On July 6, 2005, the IOC assembled at the Raffles City Convention Centre, in Singapore, on occasion of 117th IOC Session, where the 2012 Summer Olympics host city would be elected.".
2. Unlink "One Voice, One Rhythm, One World" if you think it won't be created soon. (I don't think it's notable enough for that).
3. Format hours as per
   WP:DATE
   and put references for this section.

This is enough, for now. I'll read the rest and return here with more comments. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Ornstein

Article on a virtually forgotten, but once renowned (and notorious) musical figure—perhaps

]

bcasterline

Looks like an exceptional article. Some comments:

• Under "Fame and futurism": is "concertizing" really a word? I would replace it with something more clear and less jarring.

• It is, but you're right—unnecessarily jargonistic. Edited.—DCGeist 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the use of quotations is generally effective, but you might consider replacing some with simpler paraphrasing. The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Later life", for example, is confusing.

• Right. Edited.—DCGeist 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of colons and semicolons. I don't think anything's grammatically incorrect, but think about rewriting some passages to get rid of them. The last sentence of "Transition in the 1920s" is a good example of something that could be rewritten.

• Decolonized. I'll make sure no more sneak in.—DCGeist 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not much is said about the Ornstein School of Music in Philadelphia -- you might think about adding more information if it's available.

• Brilliant call, mate. You inspired me to go outside the usual classical music sources, which say only little, and it turns out a couple of very important jazz players went there. Thank you so much.—DCGeist 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work overall. -- bcasterline • talk 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: Much gratitude for your specific and wonderfully productive comments.—DCGeist 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem; pleasure to read. I hope you're thinking about FAC, by the way. Certainly seems like a worthy candidate to me. -- bcasterline • talk 18:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of the Insane

Given the fact I got Christ Illusion to FA, I now wish to get this article to at least GA, and maybe even FA if enough material is available. Thanks in advance for your comments, and any feedback is welcomed. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the point of the "Song information" header when it only has Origins under it.
• Link Josh Abraham - Warcon Enterprises - Columbus, Ohio
• Araya read the article during the plane journey. to where? i guess to the recording studio
• Leaving his belongings at the hotel, he went to rehearsals, returned and then re-read the article - the end of the previous sentence ends with Josh Abraham, so perhaps "Araya went to rehearsals, returned and re-read the article"
• with Slayer competing against a field consisting of- a field? sounds like a football game, with Slayer competing against Lamb is my preference
• A picture of the front cover of Texas monthly [1] would be awesome
• Lombardo's drums open it slowly - This is Dave's first mention so link to Dave Lombardo
• When referring to a member link their first mention in the body and use their second name from then on, Kerry king twice - oh that's the only one.
• Once sentence paragraphs- King's political message could easily be merged with another paragraph, not sure about saw 3. Nice work :) M3tal H3ad 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll get onto them :) LuciferMorgan 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea i'll add one M3tal H3ad 09:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IvoShandor

Just a few things at a glance:

• I was looking for info about the song's release, chart performance and sales and came up empty.
• The above would probably lead to some lead expansion.
• Also didn't see any information about the production (save the inspiration - interesting to be sure) and recording of the track.

That's all for now, hope that helps. IvoShandor 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any information as regards the single's chart performance, sales, production and recording of the track. Having said that, the review is helpful in that should I find this information, I'll endeavour to add it. Thanks for your comments. LuciferMorgan 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

• Echoing Ivo above, maybe mention the chart performance, and also the cover art. Ceoil 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I find the chart performance I'll endeavour to add it. Thanks for mentioning the cover art - I'll make sure to look out for info as to the artist, their inspiration etc. which would prove rather interesting if the information was at hand. Thanks for your comments. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bourne Identity

I have recently completely re-written the article and am hoping to nominate it for a GA review and eventually get it to, cross fingers, FA status. I've attempted to find as much information on the film's production as possible and have modelled it on the smaller film articles such as Latter Days and Dog Day Afternoon. As this is my first attempt, I'm not entirely sure if it has the essentials or the potential but I'm hoping more experienced editors can have a look and see what needs doing. Thanks. Qjuad 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you provide the source and fair use rationale for Image:BourneIdentityfilm.jpg, it can be considered for a Good Article class.--Crzycheetah 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated Image:BourneIdentityfilm.jpg with the appropriate license, a source and a fair use rationale.Qjuad 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Franklin High School

I'm hoping to get some ideas on how to improve the article, how far it might be from GA status, and what Importance the school has within its projects. Thanks! --Jh12 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The Student Body section could be expanded, because it currently only includes the nationality of the students. 1312020Wikicop 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bcasterline

Some comments:

• The wording of the lead is awkward.
• "History" doesn't actually have much history aside from Hurricane Katrina and address changes. Could be expanded.
• "Academics" is mostly statistics. Could be expanded.
• Cut down on the bolded terms under "Enrollment" and "Extracurricular activities".
• "Extracurricular activities" has lots of stubby subsections. Expand them or remove the headlines.
• Consider removing the "Trivia" section per
  WP:TRIV
  .

In general, I think there's room for expansion. Looks like a good start though. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 01:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Selvo

Hey, everyone. At total random, I decided to take this article from what it had been[2] and turned it into what it is now. I've tried my best to get this article to FA status. I've found as many resources on this absurdly obscure topic as humanly possible and I've participated in FAC for the last month or so to really get an understanding of what it takes for articles to be promoted. I think now that it is close, but I've come as far as I can take it and now I need help polishing it up. I'll list specific issues I'd really be interested in seeing discussed here to get it started, but naturally you can add whatever suggestions you may have for the article.

1. Is the lead long enough/concise enough/coherent enough/representative of the article?
2. Do you see any problems with the notes section? I'm looking particularly at note 31 and how I should cite a source such as Basilicasanmarco.it when there is no apparent author of the page other than the institution.
3. Do you see any problems with the references section? Here I'm testing the waters for something that I have not yet seen show up in
   FAC
   . Essentially, what happens if your subject is so obscure that half of your sources don't have ISBNs? Is it OK to cite the LOC number? I've asked another user already and he essentially said that there shouldn't be a problem because the spirit of the citation is still perfectly intact.
4. How does the image layout strike you? I've heard people complain about non-alternating images, but it's difficult to do that in this article without setting off the text a lot. I had a particularly difficult time getting that Diehl quote in and showing an example of St Mark's Basilica mosaics all under the same section without creating awkward text overlays.
5. How do you feel about the See Also section? I've seen people complain about the inclusion of this kind of section, but I can't seem to fit it in anywhere in the article, yet I think it's a very important link to have on a Doge's page.
6. Does the succession box at the bottom throw you off? It's a direct rip off of the ItWiki's Doge succession box, but I'm open to suggestions. I will soon apply the box to all the existing Doge articles if some consensus is reached here. My personal opinion on the matter is that I love it. I think it's a very cool box that is not overbearing and looks very nice at the same time. To me it seems much better than just the boring rectangle succession box that you usually find.
7. How about the infobox at the top of the page? Is there enough information? Is there too much information? By the way, it is the "Monarchy Info Box" which is not a reflection on the government of the Republic of Venice, it's just the nicest one I could find that wasn't too flashy.
8. Are there any issues with the pictures and text anywhere that I'm not seeing? I'm using 1024x768 at the moment and I configured the page so it fits best under those circumstances. If there are any major problems (like the last picture dropping too low into the Notes section), please let me know and I'll see if I can come up with a solution.

Well that's all I can come up with right now. I'm really looking forward to reading your opinions and I will respond here as quickly as I possibly can and leave a notification on your talk page to let you know I've responded. Thanks again in advance and I hope you can help me make this article featured! JHMM13 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Isotalo

Peter, thanks. You've been a huge help on this article. I'll try to address each of your points here.

I'll start by saying that this has been an impressive and meticulous expansion of an article of relative obscurity. I'll reply to the questions below and then move on to some (rather minor) gripe of my own.

1. Technically, there's room for more info, but I feel it's very representative of the article.

Thanks.

3. The "other user" was me, so I'll just add that I don't see how it would be a problem other than (maybe) someone complaining about the obscurity of the sources. But that should only be a problem if someone actually has reason to doubt the reliability of said source.

Was there a number 2 suggestion you had? Yeh, for now I think it's fine.

4. I think some of the complaints might have been due to some images being inserted right at the end of a section rather than in the beginning of the one after it. I tried suggesting a tweak for at the article, but it'll probably take a few tries to get it right.

My trouble with this is that I don't know what is the most common screen setting for Wikipedians.

5. Complaints about useful links? I can't see why. In fact, I would like a few more links, and I would recommend to ignore requests to remove any links that appear in the article from the See also-section. Unless they're very prominent and repeated several times, there's no harm in repeating them once more in a section which has the sole purpose of being an internal "further reading"-guide. It must be very common for someone to read maybe just the lead, browse through the rest of the article, and then check out related articles.

I'll try to put in a few links in the See Also section.

6. I think it looks great! I generally whine quite a bit about succession boxes, but this one seems like anything but crufty.

Thanks!

7. As far as infoboxes go, less is always more. Maybe a few more facts, but nothing extreme. The infobox cruftfests that we have in articles like Michael Jordan are just embarrassing.

Got it. I think I'll leave it as it is because I don't have much more information.

Now for some pointers of my own:

• Why are there so many citations in the lead? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so it doesn't seem necessary to cite anything stated there.

I've taken most citations out of the lead except the note regarding his name.

• There are several repeats of the same sources throughout the article. Footnotes such as 6, 12, 16, 27 are used lots of time. Any particular reason for these? Just a suggestion that some of the most obvious ones could be merged.

Those two are my best sources that discuss his whole reign in as much detail as possible. The rest would often view it from one perspective or just one instance in his life (like the naval Battle at Durazzo and nothing else). I separate certain page ranges that I think are distinct so if people wanted to get to that information in those sources, they could get there without reading 15 pages first. I'm trying not to hide the information as much as possible.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Does anyone else have any suggestions for this article?

M3tal H3ad

Thank you for responding M3tal H3ad :-D. I will address each of your useful suggestions one-by-one.

• From the middle of the tenth century until 991, I don't like the use of "the middle" is there an actual year period like 1950's?

I've changed the sentence to this: Beginning with the reign of Pietro II Candiano in 932 Venice saw a string of inept leaders such as Pietro III Candiano, Pietro IV Candiano, and Tribuno Memmo, whose reputed arrogance and ambition caused the deterioration of their relationship with the Holy Roman Empire in the west, the stagnancy of their relationship with the Byzantine Empire in the east, and discord at home in the Republic. What do you think about this sentence? I've also added a reference to earlier in Norwich where it makes the information regarding those Doges very clear. It's difficult to go into too much detail or it stops being a biography of Domenico Selvo and starts being a history of Venice. I'll be creating the Tribuno Memmo article later today most likely to eliminate the red link on the page.

• inept leaders - what leaders?

Please see above.

• link Doge - i was clueless to what it was

The reason I didn't link Doge was because I had already linked Doge of Venice in the first line. Though, since I just realized that there is an article on Doges in general, I'll be sure to link it.

• regaining some of the territory that had been lost - > regaining territory that had been lost. No need for "some of the" - redundant

Done

• the majority of the people of Venice were clearly not in favor of having a royal hereditary class, reference? sounds a bit POV and OR - same with "Being connected to the relatively popular Doge might have been one of the causes for his own apparent initial popularity."

These are both conjectures from information presented previously in the section. The law I referenced, which was put in by a popular movement of Venetians, disallowing the son of a Doge to become a Doge is the important bit here. I think it's less point of view and more common history of Venice info, but if you'd like, I could reference the Grubb article concerning "the Myth of Venice" and the common beliefs Venetians held regarding government and politics.

• Add
  WP:PDATA

Done. It's at the bottom of the article if you'd like to review it.

• The See Also section comes before notes

Done.

• 1071 - 1080: peace and prosperity - as far as I'm aware Peace should be capitalized because its the first letter in the title.

Done by Peter Isotalo. Thank you :-)

• Whenever you refer to him in the body use Selvo, don't mention his full name every time - we know its Domenico from the article title

I've removed all the ones that are in the prose, but I kept the one that is in the image caption. I hope this is not a problem. If it is, please let me know.

• Looks good to me though, although try have a reference at the end of each paragraph.

I've tried to reference everything that needs referencing in the places they need it. For the history of the battles, information that is typically not disputed (though I've noted which parts are disputed), I tended to put one all-encompassing end-of-paragraph reference for general information about what was going on (usually to Norwich or Hazlitt, my two big sources). I believe there's only one paragraph (outside the lead) with only one reference, and that one is at the end of the paragraph. I'll go through the last lines of the paragraphs that have no citations at the end to try to see where the issues arise:

However, one fact remained: based on their actions in the first half of the 11th century, the majority of the people of Venice were clearly not in favor of having a royal hereditary class. This reality, coupled with the fresh memories of power-hungry Doges, set the stage for Domenico Selvo. When I wrote this, I felt it was pretty boring and basic conjecture based on the bunch of evidence I gave beforehand. The claims made are no historical secret and any reliable history of Venice will address these points. I believe that if people read the whole section and check out the accompanying references, they will understand immediately. I didn't want to clutter up the page with multiple references to the same page or pages. I wonder what you think in light of this. Do you think it's ok in this instance to have no citation at the end of a paragraph?

Being connected to the relatively popular Doge might have been one of the causes for his own apparent initial popularity. This was a mistake of mine caused by an add-on edit. It is important to discuss why Selvo was popular, and therefore elected, but I think this kind of supposition does need at least a source to link the two claims, and that source is Hazlitt. I had it at the end of the previous sentence, but reviewing it now, I see that Hazlitt is where I got the info from in the first place, so I just moved the citation to the end of the paragraph instead.

Incidentally, the location also proved ideal for the election of a new Doge for the very same reasons. I felt this one was so straight-forward that providing an inline citation might do more to insult the reader's intelligence than provide them with information. :-D. Please let me know if you think it needs a citation and I'll move around the notes to encompass this information. So I don't tread on Peter's response, I just want to thank you again here for reviewing the article. It means very much to me. JHMM13 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad 09:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses a lot of sources. Have you read any of them? Have you seen sources that say otherwise? If you're to bring up charges of POV and/or OR please motivate your suspicions.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's not an in-line source for these claims, which is required for FA when information is likely to be challenged. M3tal H3ad 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article doesn't (technically) have inlines. Why did you decide to question this and not everything else? Do you have any reason to doubt it other than simply never seeing the claim before? Please keep in mind that there are no specified requirements concerning the density of footnotes in FAs.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Mark

Just a quick note until I have more time later. I've done a bit of wordsmithing but came across a couple items I couldn't fix myself. In the section "1081 - 1083: Victory" (para. 2, sent. 3) it is stated that Guiscard’s ships “retreated into ???”; the destination has apparently been accidentally edited out. As I recall, they retreated to the shore, not into someplace in particular. Second, what is (currently) footnote #29, regarding his burial at St. Mark’s, is blank. I suspect the reference name might be "dogeonline" instead of "dogionline". BTW, you all have done a GREAT job improving this stub!! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million times for the vote of confidence. I'm slightly embarrassed by the missing reference because I spent so much time keeping them in order. It is, however, my fault, because I initially had that ref "dogionline" in the lead, but I deleted it to trim out the notes up there, and I just ran the /ref follow up without initiating a note in the first place, which is why it was blank. The problem is now fixed and I've updated the retrieval dates for all (3) web refs. Regarding your first question, the hidden word was "harbor." Unfortunately, nobody won this round of Wheel of Fortune. :-D. I'm eagerly awaiting your other suggestions, and I want to thank you for all the copyedits you've made to this article. JHMM13 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand, and after you've looked at the article umpteen-hundred times, you end up being surprised by the blatantly obvious errors you can't believe you didn't catch until they were pointed out to you. :P That's why it's good to have extra heads take a look at it.

Okay, here are my comments on your questions:

1) Yes, I think it’s fine in length and coverage. Some further tweaking might be done, but it's okay.

2) I’ve used “Anonymous” for the author;

for an alternative citation approach in which the author is “optional.”

I had a look at the templates and what I have now seems to give information in almost exactly the same way. I'll keep it as is for now.

3) It’s quite okay to have sources without the ISBN. The focus should be on documenting the sources, and providing the ISBN where it is available. According to [sources/example style#Books|Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style], the LOC is fine, but I usually see it identified as “LCCN” followed by their catalog number.

Changed to LCCN.

You will find that some editors like combining References and Footnotes into a single “References and notes” section, but others do not. I tend to go with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Notes, which recommends keeping them separate when there are a lot of footnotes — and this article has lots of footnotes.

I'm not getting a little confused by all the terminology. My notes section is full of citations and footnotes, right? For instance, #27 is a footnote, but #26 is a citation? And the references are the full citations below? Should I keep three sections?

Where there is a separate Reference section, it will have a list of the reference sources used given in alphabetical order by author name — yours is correct. As Wikipedia uses them, a citation (e.g., #2) gives the particular source for a particular statement, while a footnote (e.g., #1) provides explanatory text. A "References and notes" section combines the two — and then "footnote" becomes generic for either or both; in fact, one can have a "proper" citation followed by further explanatory or commentary text as part of the same "footnote" (although I think this is "pushing it" and I tend to deprecate it). (Take a look at what I have in the HAL Tejas article on how I have built a "References and notes" section.)

You could choose to separate "proper" citations and footnotes into different sections. It's acceptable style, but the problem that arises is how to distinguish between the two. Traditionally footnotes would be identified with with a number of asterisks ("*") and/or daggers ("†"), depending on how many will appear on a single page. Wikipedia, however, lacks distinct pages and such symbols are difficult to "automate" for long lists. Some have started using serial Greek alphabet characters for listing footnotes separately. There is a template for this somewhere.

However and nonetheless, there has recently been discussion supporting the maintenance of a separate "Bibliography" when there is a long list of citations and footnotes in a "References and notes" section. That way, other editors and readers can quickly identify the main sources used (and editions, where important) without digging all through a mass of citations. It's not a guideline at present, but there's obviously a problem being encountered with the standing MoS.

In summary, I think your current approach is acceptable, but I would rename the "Notes" section "References and notes" and the "References" section "Bibliography". Askari Mark (Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) It’s really a matter of “what looks good.” Too many too close together (vertically) takes away from the layout quality. The only images I’d suggest floating left would be the Guardi painting and the coin.

I actually have more trouble with the two quote “boxes”. You employ two different styles, for one thing. I think the Diehl quote should appear one paragraph earlier and I don’t find that having regular text floating to its right is at all appealing. One approach I’ve seen used elsewhere that might work here is to place it centered right under the section header and before the St. Mark’s image. The earlier quote might best be placed inline with the text, with the translation in parentheses. (I’ve noticed that “imaged” and “boxed” quotes get deprecated a lot in reviews.)

I've removed the first box and worked it into the prose while having the translation in parentheses. Do you want me to use the current box and center it under the section header or something else? I'm not too familiar with quote boxes.

I've not used them much myself. My temptation is to center it rather than float it one way or the other. Perhaps you could leave it so that the FA reviewers have something to criticize ... er, make helpful suggestions about. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5) “

” sections are fine, but should only be used to direct readers to further articles on related topics of interest which were not already linked to in the article.

I've removed the link to Doge of Venice, but I've kept the List of Doges of Venice link which I think is useful.

Yep, it is. That's just what belongs there. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6) The succession box is fine, relevant, useful, and there’s no problem with using it.

Thanks!

7) Like Peter Isotalo, I am also a minimalist when it comes to infoboxes. You might mark his birth as “unknown” simply because the death date looks a little odd out there all by its lonesome.

Done and done.

My comments:

A) For the sake of his legacy, is there any more available information on his contributions to Venetian culture or civic affairs than St. Mark’s and riding off graciously into the sunset? Sometimes people complain that there is too much focus on the wars (although not infrequently that’s most of what history has left us with). You allude to the cross-cultural influences between Venice and the Byzantines; is there something a little more explicit that might be said (perhaps with a “See main article: xyz” subheader to link the reader to a fuller discussion)?

Unfortunately there is very little on Wikipedia that I can find regarding the cross-cultural relationship between Venice and the Byzantine empire. I wish there was, but the legacy section of a particular Doge doesn't seem the appropriate place to elaborate too heavily. Several of the sources, particularly Byzantium and Venice, give a very great analysis of this relationship and the significance of the Golden Bull. The very difficult thing about this subject is that not an enormous amount of material has been written on Domenico Selvo, and whatever was written is almost always written from the perspective of how Venice managed to scrape by during those years. St. Mark's in itself is a grand cultural testament to the relationship between Byzantium and Venice and the fact that it was mostly constructed under Selvo's supervision speaks volumes to me. I wish I could talk about the inner-workings of domestic Venice (legal system, fish trade, boat trade, etc.), but finding real, reliable sources for that kind of thing is like finding a needle in a needle factory. I suspect that the only people with any semblance of that kind knowledge have access to a plethora of primary sources that are most likely written in something resembling Latin. In other words, it's beyond my means...I've tried to find more, but I've found it practically impossible for me to do. I've added some more information about the distrust of his wife leading to his deposal that was in Staley, but more I'm having trouble doing. :-(..sorry.

Don't apologize — you can only work with what you have sources for (that you can read). I raised the issue because a FA reviewer is likely to do the same. Also, you don't have to look to Wikipedia articles — your own work might inspire others to write more on it. That's part of the value of identifying references: It helps some discover a useful source they didn't already know about it, and others to contribute from sources not available/accessible to editors who have "gone ahead." Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B) I recommend scanning the article for “

”. E.g., see footnote #28 “... but according to Hazlitt and Norwich, almost all accounts name Selvo as an heroic figure who nearly beat staggering odds.” If the source actually uses those words, then mark the phrase with quotation marks; if not, find a better word. (There actually isn’t much in the article’s text that clarifies what the odds were in either battle.)

I've changed the wording to this: "...according to Hazlitt and Norwich, almost all accounts name Selvo as an heroic figure who nearly overcame an unlikely counterattack." I think that fits the information a little more accurately. I've tried looking around and I can't find too many...that might be because I wrote it. :-/

I didn’t see anything else offhand that hadn’t been caught by one of the other reviewers. It really is a great job! Awesome, dude! Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot again! You've helped me out a lot on my (long) quest to get this promoted to FA status!

Thank you for your continued help in this FA drive! I've made the requested changes to the article and if you have any other concerns or suggestions, please please please let me know and I'll try to figure out where I went wrong. Thanks also for being bold and changing the article on your own...it's our article, after all! :-D JHMM13 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice

Wow, that's really a great improvement. Let me answer JHMM13's questions, and then make a few separate comments.

Thanks a lot for really taking the time to thoroughly review this. I will attempt to address each point one-by-one.

1. Yes. There's a sentence with "power" twice that's a little clunky.

How does this sound: "He successfully avoided conflicts with the

Roman Catholic Church

at a time in European history when struggles for power threatened to upset the balance thereof."

2,3. Yes - I think the notes & references sections should be reorganized, because most of the notes are citations, but some of the notes are really footnotes and aren't citations, and those should be separate. I wouldn't worry about note 31, but I would hope that you could integrate those two sections. See History of the Philippines for an example of the type of references section I'm invisioning.

My main problem with organizing the notes and references section to the way it's done in History of the Philippines is that I think that the article is a lot less cluttered with separate notes and references sections. Perhaps a way we can work around this problem is to have three separate sections that go Notes, Citations, and References. It helps in the editing process to not have full citations refed from the body of the article, as pointed out by Peter Isotalo on the article's talk page. I'd love to hear your opinion on this.

4. The image layout seems okay, but I don't know about the image selection. Why two different maps? I like the second one, but the first one seems relatively unimportant. If you're going to have two maps, I would think that they should at least be at two different scales, or show some kind of change between the two of them; right now I just find it a little odd. As for the painting by Guardi, could you add a date to it? If the date is far from 1071-1084 (as I suspect), I'm not sure that image is so appropriate. Perhaps a modern-day photo of Lido or a close-up map of it? There's room for improvement.

I'm glad you brought this up. I'll try to explain my rationale for using these images. The two maps are there to illustrate the expansion of Robert Guiscard's forces in souther Italy and the subsequent loss of land by the Byzantine Empire. It is an important point in the article as it relates to the later conflicts at Durazzo and Corfu, but perhaps I can put that info in the caption? I have to admit that it's very difficult to find illustrations for an article about a person who doesn't have any known paintings (to the best of my knowledge) and who lived in a time that didn't have an overabundance of contemporary landscape paintings. This brings me to the painting by Guardi. According to the descriptions by Norwich, Tino, and Hazlitt, the lagoon was filled with ships of all sizes. Ascension Day was already being celebrated in this manner in Venice in 1071 and one of the focuses of this celebration was the church of San Nicolò. The church stood in 1071 as it did in 1766 when the painting was painted. This is a long gap, but the only real noticeable differences would be these: different surrounding houses, slightly different kinds of boats, but not in size. I think a modern day photo would provide less illustration of the subject than this pseudo-re-creation does, and on top of that, obtaining an adequate free image of San Nicolò that would usefully illustrate this article is beyond my capabilities. :-( I hope you can see why I chose this image. Please let me know what you think.

5. The See also section is fine, but if it bothers you, you could always add a link to the List of Doges of Venice article in the succession box template.

I'll leave the section as it is for now.

6. It's short and sweet, looks good. 7. The infobox is good; I think any further info in it would be distracting. 8. Looks good on my screen.

Thanks!

Separate comments:

1. First, I'm not sure I like the use of quote boxes. For one thing, there are two of them, in different formats. For another, the first quote is only being set apart becaue of the translation: that seems unnecessary, and the second quote could use more context in connecting with the article (was Diehl talking about the issuance of the Golden Bull? If so, that should be said in a caption, I think).

   I've seen articles on FAC recently get passed through with no objections to the quote boxes. Is there any community consensus regarding this? On the first box, I chose to set use that format because I thought it was the best template in Wikipedia that could show the primary source and the translation. It's an effect I want to have to try to get the reader into the mind of a Venetian of that time, but I wonder if it's an appropriate thing to do. I wonder if any other users have an opinion on this issue so we can build some consensus. On the second point you make, it originally made sense where it was in the first paragraph, but a reorganization made it make less sense. I wonder what kind of caption you have in mind, because I'd really like to see the quote box stay. I think it looks nice :-)

2. Also, in places, I'm concerned that this article is doing original research (but take it as a compliment: it looks very professional!) There are probably places here and there where it would be better to simply say where the sources conflict than to come to a conclusion yourself. Places where this might be at issue are the places where there are notes that aren't merely citations. A few specific places beyond that:

• The essentially democratic way in which he not only was elected but also removed from power was an important step in shaping future Venetian political philosophy. (lead),

  This is addressed in the legacy section...in other words, see below.

• However, one fact remained: based on their actions in the first half of the 11th century, the majority of the people of Venice were clearly not in favor of having a royal hereditary class. This reality, coupled with the fresh memories of power-hungry Doges, set the stage for Domenico Selvo. (Background section),

  As I wrote above (in response to another reviewer...I can't remember who right now), I felt that this was pretty basic conjecture or extrapolation. I don't feel I was making any claims with these two sentences that aren't covered adequately by not only the information that precedes it, but also by the claims of the authors of the secondary sources. Please let me know if you think they need citations and I'll reorganize the current citations to better encompass the claims.

• ...but it can be assumed that he was a Venetian noble because, with the rare exception of Domenico Flabanico, only members of this class were elected to the position of Doge at this point in the Republic's history. (Biography / Life before Dogeship)

  Those first three sentences are covered by note 9. I omitted the citation to prevent clutter. Do you think it is worthwhile to cite note 9 twice in a matter of two or three sentences or does it work as is?

• Due to the new trade privileges and the fact that virtually no damage was inflicted on the Venetians during this siege, Selvo remained very popular in Venice. (Biography / 1081-1083: Victory)

  The whole second part of this paragraph is covered by note 26 just like with the Hazlitt quote above. Same question applies here...double cite or leave as is?

• Guiscard, however, saw the departing Venetian convoy and realized that his last chance had come for victory. (Biography / 1084: Defeat & deposal) (this sentence could actually be removed: it just serves to up the narrative tension.)

  Sentence is gone.

• Acting on the sensible belief by the Doge that a third attack would be extraordinarily unlikely and the presence of a slightly depleted Venetian fleet meant greater odds for victory, Guiscard summoned every floating vessel he could find and led the Normans into a surprise attack. (right after previous one)

  This sentence is covered by the Hazlitt citation at the end of the paragraph. Same question applies here...double cite or leave as is?

• The whole last paragraph under "Legacy".

  Admittedly, this section stems from the academic claims that the turbulent relationship Venetians had with their Doges and the reformation of the democratic process had been shaped over the centuries through a series of deposals and popular elections. The only analysis I have provided here is that Domenico Selvo was one of those Doges and that the contrast between his popularity at the beginning and end of his reign illustrates this legacy quite well. I've added a reference to the "myth of venice" and how it describes the concept behind the popular belief of free will and the democratic process in the Republic of Venice.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying I doubt any of this. Just, whenever the article starts making analytical claims about events, I want to see an inline citation for the sentence. Okay, that's it. Good work. When you put this up for FAC, let me know; if you address all these points I'll definitely support. Mangojuice^talk 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As the Italians would say, sei un drago! Thanks a lot, and I eagerly anticipate your response.JHMM13 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see double cites than wonder about the support for individual sentences. The one including "set the stage for Domenico Selvo" -- yeah, I do think that needs sourcing, it's making an analytical claim about what Venetians wanted in terms of their rulers. My point about quote boxes is more that they seem a little clunky the way they're used in this article, not that I object to them as a general thing. Mangojuice^talk 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've cited the sentences as Norwich and Hazlitt both hold those claims (so I just refed Norwich). I've moved the images around and tried to make it work out to some extent. I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out what does and does not look good. To me it never looks good to have a left-side image directly under the section heading, but I guess a lot of people do because you tend to see it often in FAs. I moved the Lido painting to the left and switched the positions of the quote box and the St Mark's image but keeping the image on the right so it doesn't interfere with the See Also header at higher screen resolutions (I usually use 1024x768, but I've upped it for the moment to the next one so I can see what people tend to use more often). Let me know if you still see any problems. JHMM13 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the painting is okay; it's certainly better with the date specified. I like the second map, it's the first one that seems a bit unnecessary (especially with the second one there) - what is the first one illustrating, exactly? More important, I think the article attributes too much importance to Selvo's forced abdication. Do any of the sources describe his abdication as "important" in the development of a democratic rule in Venice? Do any of the sources describe his election and abdication as his most important contribution to Venice? I think it's certainly reasonable to cite Selvo as an example of a peaceful transition of power and note that Venice was in the progress of developing from a monarchic system to a democratic one. But this really seems to be making claims beyond the analysis in the sources, which we shouldn't do. Mangojuice^talk 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain why I think the image is worthy of being on there. It shows the Byzantine control over southern Italy and how close it was to the Holy Roman Empire at the time. Guiscard spent a long time kicking the Byzantines out of Italy and did so in part by allying himself with the Pope, the essential co-ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. It was very similar to the Vietnam War in which the two main powers weren't fighting, but there were tensions. Venice was stuck right in the middle of this mess and managed to befriend both sides by not fighting either. The second map shows the transition of power from Byzantine control over southern Italy to full Norman control under Guiscard. Would perhaps anyone else like to sound off on this issue? If we do get rid of it, are there any suggestions for a replacement? I've reworded the last paragraph a bit per your request. You were right, there are no mentions of it being a particularly important transition, but the Norwich reference covers the entire scope of the transitions of power in Venetian history. I hope you find this acceptable. Thanks a lot, JHMM13 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think having both maps is fine. The problem seems to arise with the fact that they are very similar. When I first saw them, I thought it was a matter of duplication of the same image — until I looked closer. The main differences are in the political structure of the lower part of the "boot" of Italy and the fact that the second is focused a little further east and south of the first. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford United F.C.

I've spent over a year improving and updating this article, and its associated articles, and I would like feedback from a different viewpoint. Bigmike 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Many thanks for all your comments so far, I've managed to implement some of the suggested changes already. The other changes, particularly citations, will be forthcoming in the next couple of days when I can get my hands on the relevant books. Bigmike 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man

Hey, definitely a good article, I just wanted to add some feedback to encourage both Bigmike and other editors to do the same. I'll provide further comments as soon as I can. The Rambling Man 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you want this article to go, my review comments will come from a potential

featured article

perspective. So, here we go (for starters!)...

1. Red links... usually a no-no, so either create the articles you've red-linked or remove the links.
2. Dashes or hyphens or whatever. Check out
   WP:DASH
   for advice on how to use things that used to be simple but that are now complicated!
3. Images - always a good idea. You said that the Hereford badge has changed a couple of times - add in the historical badges under fair use criteria and discuss them. Always a good and useful thing to do.
4. Citations, witness the up-to-date policy regarding
   attribution
   . Your history section hasn't a single citation which some people may find unacceptable.

More to come, but that's a start. Hope it helps and get in touch if want to discuss any of it futher... The Rambling Man 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. ...near-extinction... - a bit dramatic, cite it or reduce point-of-view.
2. Why is current capacity reduced in the infobox? Consider a citation.
3. ...legendary... is very POV, can you provide a citation for this?
4. ...equalling another record... - Ipswich v Man Utd perchance?! Whatever, it needs explanation...
5. The attendances listed out like that are a bit dry, consider either making it better prose, removing it or making a table out of it?
6. Consider a W/D/L/F/A managerial history if possible.
7. Add an overview of Hereford's records.
8. Avoid too many external links, spam warning!

Again, hope that helps, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elisson

Not an exhaustive list of things to do but rather a few things I noticed right away:

1. Get rid of the current season section, we're not a news service. Otherwise the history section is better balanced than most other history sections you see these days, although there is some "recentism" (1924-1966 [42 years] two paragraphs, 1966-2006 [40 years], five and a half paragraphs).
2. Needs references and more citations if you want to bring it to GA or FA status. Examples of sentences needing citation:

   History section: "In 1966 Hereford signed John Charles, the legendary Wales, Leeds United and Juventus player, whose presence boosted attendances substantially."

   History section: "The 1996-97 season saw the club relegated from the Football League amid major financial troubles due to major mismanagement."

   Support section: "Hereford United was historically one of the best-supported clubs in non-league football, particularly during the 1960s."

3. A few nice images would really spice up the article.
4. Incorporate the trivia bits of info into the other sections.
5. There should be some kind of inclusion criteria for the notable players section.

Overall, this is a pretty good article, but it needs a little work to reach GA status, and some more work to be ready for FAC. – Elisson • T • C • 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

The article definitely compares favourably with articles about other teams from the same level. It is structurally sound, but could do with more references.

• I disagree with The Rambling Man about redlinks, they are few in number so it isn't much of an issue.
  • Cool, but it does depend on where this article is going - most, if not all FA's have no red-links. However, a red-link isn't an intrinsic failing point. The Rambling Man 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be so sure about that. ;) Today's featured article has twelve redlinks, for example. Redlinks are generally not an issue on FAC unless they are integral for the article in question, unlike list articles where the list itself depends on having a lot of bluelinks. This one has a few in the notable players section, but that section itself is really not important for the article so I don't see a problem with the redlinks there. – Elisson • T • C • 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid using language which implies an emotional attachment (not always easy to do when you're a fan, I know) e.g. Unfortunately Hereford lost in the playoffs on penalties to Aldershot Town - it wasn't unfortunate for Aldershot!
• Graham Turner's role of chairman-manager isn't unique - Ron Noades and Barry Fry have held the same position in recent years.
• As stated above, more citations would be of benefit. Ideally, every statement which could be questioned by a sceptical reader should have a citation. To take examples from near the start of the History section, the merger which led to the club's formation, the groundshare with Hereford City and the record win over QPR should all be supported by citations.
• While the pool of literature available about Hereford is likely to be limited in comparison with a higher division club, a search of Herefordshire libraries reveals three books sbout the club (using "Hereford United" as a search term here) If you live in the area it might be worth borrowing them to help with citations.
• Restate the capacity of Edgar Street in the Stadium section.
• Merge the items mentioned in the trivia section elsewhere in the article, except the Soccer AM one, which can be removed.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Qwghlm

I concur with most of the above comments, especially the ones saying more images are needed. This article is good, but need some tweaks and enhancements.

• Club referred to in the singular or plural - either is fine but make it consistent e.g. "The club has won relatively few honours [...] However they became synonymous..."
• The match with Wigan Athletic in 1953-54 is needlessly mentioned twice in successive paragraphs - remove one (I would suggest the first).
• I don't like the use of words such as "legendary" when describing players or managers, it smacks of hyperbole.
• "with literally every vantage point taken" - misuse of the word literally, unless their really were people in the sky watching the game, etc.
• "the distinction of being the first team to finish bottom of the Second Division after winning the Third Division title the previous season" — needs citation
• "equalised against the run of play" - unwikify and provide a very exceptional source (i.e. a neutral account) for that claim.
• Graham Turner's takeover of the club is better moved into the relevant part of the History section.
• "they used material from blackout curtains to make shorts when they ran out of white material" — interesting but needs a citation.
• Surely the crest section can be discussed in more than one sentence, unless the history is that boring! When was it first adopted, what changes have there been, etc., etc.
• Citations needed aplenty for the stadium section, particularly anything to do with financial issues.
• "to the apparent chagrin of visiting supporters" and "they regularly attracted the largest home attendances" need citations.
• Managerial history could be turned into a table with more precise dates, performance records, P/W/D/L statistics etc., if such records are available.
• Trim the external links - the MAD/Rivals/Vital Football sites are all pretty minor and provide little extra information. Qwghlm 10:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Hamasaki

Brought up because tagged by

.

Contains constantly reverted material conserning her birth name, some references need to be integrated and some references need to be added.

]

• Needs references. Many, many references. The sales information appears to be random (probably picked from a magazine, but since nobody cares about citing the source, it looks like someone just adds some random thousands numbers and update the numbers). Main problem is that people don't care about the capitalization guidelines, and revert to the uppercase/lowercase trademark. If twenty or thirty references are added for paragraphs that are speculation (currently, Early life and Show business in Tokyo have no references at all. Too many decorative fair use images. A free image would be nice, but the owner of the one I found did not reply. One or two music samples would be nice, but that would create a edit war between fans to choose the "best" one, or to try to always upload the "newest" one (as you can see, editors try to keep the infobox image as up to date as possible, not trying to get a free one). -- ReyBrujo 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayajidda

Bayajidda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I worked on this article on and off for about two months, I've exhausted sources turned up by Google, and I dare say my local library doesn't have very good coverage of Africa - if Bayajidda is mentioned in any books there, I can guarantee it is for no more than two sentences. So, with regards to length, there isn't really anything I can expand, although anyone who can is encouraged to do so. I'm requesting a peer review so as to identify anything besides length that could get in the way of it becoming a good article. Picaroon 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peripitus

A few comments on what is an interesting read...

• The lead of the article needs to summarise the entire article and so usually does not have references as they are in the body of the article
• Would be good to have a section discussing what the sources have said about Bayajidda compared to other hausa mythological characters.
• Trip across Africa section is just a single paragraph - should be either expanded or merged with a later section.
• the first sentence of the Analysis of the story's meaning has an issue. It both mentions Malcolm J. Lamb and has a
  WP:CITE
  reference to the work. You need to pick one or the other way or referencing this opinion and the counter in the next paragraph.
• didn't in the lead (and the Arrival in Daura and slaying of the serpent section) needs to be did not

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I've added a bit about the story itself to the lead and moved all the references to the body of the article.
• I'm not sure what to say about this proposed section, save that I've never really heard much about non-Islamic Hausa mythology besides Bayajidda. A lot of the
  Fulani Jihad
  of the early 1800s. I've seen nothing comparing and contrasting the Bayajidda Legend with Islam, so to do so would be original research. In conclusion, all I can safely say is that Hausa society is nearly completely Islamic nowadays, and that the few remaining non-Muslim Hausa (there's a derogatory term for them, which I can't recall at the moment) aren't covered much. I'll do some more Googling, but don't get your hopes up.
• Merged that section and the below one.
• I've removed the mention of Lamb. However, per Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources, it is appropriate to name Lange in the text and cite his work at the same times because he is a respected professor on Africa topics, thereby making his self-published overview of the Conference of the Africa Studies Organization in Germany a relibale source.
• Contractions expanded. Are there any other barriers you see to this being a good article? Picaroon 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldux

Hi Picaroon! I'll just say what immediately appears before the eye. The quality of the article is, obviously, very high, and I well know the effort you've given to this specific article.

• The lead is too short, in my view. In
  WP:LEAD
  , it proposes for medium size articles leads 2-3 paragraphs-long, that summarize the content of the article.
• The first section, I agree with Periptus, is really too short. As the
  WP:SS
  says about sections, "each about several good-sized paragraphs long".
• You should try to remove the "see also" section by simply embedding the two links in the main text, if possible.
• I'd propose to rename "Further reading and external links" simply "external links", by removing the book. I generally feel it's not a good idea to insert a further reading, as it's hard for for it's extemely selectivity not to be problematic.
• If you want to find new sources for your article their may be a possibility on the web you have not yet explored. Have you ever tried with http://books.google.com? If you haven't, if you register (it's free) you will have access to a lot of books; some only offer "Snippet view" (just a few lines of text, too little to be really of any help) but other offer "limited preview", that is, full pages. I've given just a very rapid look, but I've noted the "Cambridge History of Africa", pp. 308-310, and (under Abuyazidu) "Almanac of African Peoples and Nations" pp. 351-352.--Aldux 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've expanded the lead to two sentences. Seeing as the main attraction of the article is, in fact, the story, I'm trying to walk a fine line between not going into enough detail and giving out too much.
• I've merged the first two paragraphs into one.
• Bayajidda is more of a cultural figure than a historical hero; by this, I mean, he engaged in no wars and founded no countries. Instead, his tale, combined with later Islamic influences, set the foundations for modern Hausa culture. Because of this, I don't think there's a good place for a link to History of Nigeria. The Kano Chronicle link, meanwhile, is just there for anyone who wants more information on Hausa history; there isn't a good place to link to it, either, because it has very little to do with Bayajidda.
• Yeah, I had qualms about the naming of that section from the beginning, so I've removed the book and changed it to external links. Could you go into more depth about what you mean by extreme selectivity?
• I'll go see what Google books has to offer. Thanks for the link! Picaroon 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just meant with extreme selectivity that mentioning one, or two, or three books is always a small fragment of relevant literature on the topic; for this one should generally avoid, IMO, "further reading" sections, as they are inherently random in character.--Aldux 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some searching about, and have found several tidbits of information that could be helpful; the suggestion here about him causing a switch from matriarchal to patriarchal society is good. But how do I cite this and other "snippets" I find via books.google? Do I cut&paste the Google url? Do I cite the book with no mention of Google? Picaroon 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I cite without mentioning Google, referring instead to book and page. Another peoce of possibly (you judge) useful info. In Almanac of African peoples and nations it is written: "According to July, this legend [i. e. Bayajidda] probably refers to a series of southward migrations of Saharan hunters and fisher folks that Hausaland had experinced in the past, leading to a merger with indigenous groups" (p. 351). It also says that the Kano Chronicle narrates that the Kingdom of Kano was founded in 999 by Bayajidda's grandson, Bagauda. (p. 352)--Aldux 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagauda? That's a new one. According to Lange and the others whose work I've used, Kano founded Kano! I'll use your method of citing Google and will try to expand on the legacy section with information I find via books.google later. Thanks for the recommendation. Picaroon 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Buckley

Anything to upgrade the Page from its apparent present B-Class, to an A-Class. Seems rather well researched with references for nearly everything. I suppose layout could be improved. Any suggestions would be warmly welcomed.G.AC 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate greatly help in promoting the improvement of the page and, hopefully, eventually making this a featured article. G.AC 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

Not a bad article at all, extremely thorough (if anything too thorough!) The phrasing is a bit clumsy in spots. There are also a lot of inline quotations here; while I don't have specific suggestions about that, note that I got a lot of heat for too many quotations from the subject at my FAC review, though I only had 6 or so total. Consider reducing.

• I'm not so sure the image is a publicity photo from a press kit, it seems to be sourced to a magazine's site. Can you contact jeffbuckley.com and ask if they will release a few images under
  WP:COPYREQ
  .
• descent[2], - move ref after punctuation fixed. Dissolve 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• About his father Buckley said, "I never knew him." "I met him once, when I was 8."[4] Tim Buckley died two months later of a drug overdose in 1975.[5] - clumsy, rephrase, possibly move down a paragraph after being raised by stepfather. Explain why father lived apart. Moved and elaboratedSillyfolkboy (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What is a "stepfather of only 2 years"? Phrase no longer presentSillyfolkboy (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Buckley said, and grew up singing - clumsy, rephrase Split into 2 sentences. Dissolve 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Buckley said, and received - clumsy, rephrase Split into 2 sentences. Dissolve 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• He played the occasional funk and R&B studio session as well[24] - "as well" is extra agreed. removed. Dissolve 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• He was introduced to Qawwali at this time, the devotional music of - remove "at this time" Removed this. Dissolve 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "I idolize Nusrat,"[29] Buckley would later say. - injection of the present tense mixed with past makes this clumsy. restated as fact. Dissolve 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The tape was hoped to - rephrase Reworded this. Dissolve 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• a development deal with Gods and Monsters - in other words G&M was offered the deal, not Buckley? Then say so. Now stated as "a member of G&M"Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Buckley was an impassioned fan of Pakistani Sufi musician Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, and during his cafe days Buckley had often covered his songs. He interviewed Khan for Interview magazine and wrote liner notes for Khan's The Supreme Collection compilation. - why is this under Concert tours? I'd move it up with the earlier mention. Can you find (and reference) the interview? Now in early career section with link to Interview article Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The autopsy confirmed that Buckley had taken no illegal drugs before his swim - why was there suspicion of this? Write something about him being or not being a drug user, in an earlier section. Most musicians are reported to be, but we can't just take it as assumed. Ruling out cause of death and clarifying situation previously added Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What exactly was so remarkable about his songs? Why did he succeed? Interesting lyrics, large vocal range, did he play the guitar very well, what? What were their distinctive characteristics - how can you tell his works from those of the next fifteen musicians?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many good points here. Thanks. I'm guessing that using alot of quotations in considered un-encyclopaedic? is there a link to any guidelines, style guide or discussions on the use of quotations? that would help. Dissolve 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my FAC review that I refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson, and continued in Talk:Jenna Jameson. The article had about 6 and got jumped on, it now has even fewer and is still getting heat: "This article implicitly endorses its subject's opinions as fact. This is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia article - it's magazine style writing...." and so forth. They didn't/don't cite specific policies either. I can't say I agree with all these criticisms, and the article did make it to FA despite them, but I thought you should at least be aware of the issues. Mine was also an inherently more controversial subject, so you may get less heat. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Regazzoni

January's collaborative effort from WikiProject Formula One. Currently rated at 'B', and I suspect we could get it through a GA review, but would like to have a view from outside the project on how it reads to a non-expert and how it could be made more engaging for a non specialist audience. Thanks. 4u1e 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso

Generally good. I'd probably pass it if reviewing it for GA. A few comments:

• Having a subheading for each year makes the prose a little stop-start. Removing these and simply having the sections for each constructor would improve flow.

Done. 4u1e 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regazzoni was killed when the Chrysler Voyager he was driving collided head-on into the rear of a lorry If was into the rear then the two vehicles were not head-on.

Done. Although I'd like a better reference - newspaper writers are too prone to use of clichés like 'head on'. 4u1e 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is obvious that the 1980 accident ended his F1 career, but this should be stated explicitly instead of being inferred.

Done. 4u1e 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of statements are a little too gushing e.g. his rehabilitation became an inspirational story. A couple of things need referencing: Regazzoni won back his racing license despite the prejudices of the authorities and Tecno offered Regazzoni the use of one of their F3 chassis for 1967, where his reliable, fast performances earnt him the offer of a works Tecno drive in Formula Two for the following year.
• What were the reasons for his changes of team?
• I don't know whether the material will be available, but the Personal life section could do with being fleshed out a little. For example, where did he live in adult life?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 13:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - good comments. I'll have a stab at implementing them. Cheers. 4u1e 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

• "A single season with BRM then lead Regazzoni back to Ferrari for a further three years." Maybe past tense ("led") is better here?

Done. Thanks for the catch. 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Personal and early life". IMO this chapter is very stubby. Can't you enrich it with more infos about his early years and family?

Ideally yes, but I'm not sure I've got the material to do it. Noted and will keep an eye out. 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sections such as "Sports car racing" have no citations, and others such as "1970-1972: Ferrari" or "After Formula One" are undercited. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph.

Comment: With some of the F1 paras it's because there is no more information there than can be gleaned from the championship results. I don't believe in using inline refs for race results, because the articles would be full to overflowing with them, so that's the one thing I use a 'blanket' reference for (see 'Footnotes'). I think the real problem you've identified is that those sections could use beefing up in terms of content. I'll see what can be done. 4u1e 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "1978: Shadow" is also stubby. Maybe you could merge it with the following years, but again this may be just my personal preference!--Yannismarou 13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason that season is always covered very briefly. If anything it would be merged with the preceding season (also with a small team, also not much to say). 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I just say thanks to Yannismarou and Oldelpaso for the useful comments. This has been (sadly) far more helpful than a standard Peer Review, I really appreciate the time you've taken to comment. 4u1e 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender

Currently

]

imho

:

• Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.
• "Origins" can probably be expanded.
• This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").
• "Many people whom this article would define as transgender reject the term altogether"
• The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".
• The article seems to get off topic when discussing transsexualism, cross dressing, drag, transvestic fetishism, without tying them back to transgender.
• The section "Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures" shouldn't be a bulleted list. Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.
• Weasel words
  are used in numerous places.
• I think clearly differentiating between sex and gender and transgender and transsexual early in the article would be helpful.
• Obviously need to cite sources.

-- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. :-) My take on the article:

• Get refs for the citation needed tags (obviously).

• Origins section looks okay. Explains pretty good the difference with transsexual. Perhaps last paragraph ('More recently...') could be expanded/cleared up a bit?

• Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point. Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).

• The transsexual section is a bit long, isn't it? I mean, there's a link to the main article. And it hasn't got a single ref.

• I agree with Ashlux about the article seeming to go off-topic when discussing cross-dresser, drag, genderqueer...

• Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.

• Kudos for the Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures section. Needs work (and refs), but it's a very good idea.

That's it for now. :-) Hope it helps. Raystorm 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knock knock? Is this PR still active? Raystorm 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question :-) -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To Do" list

Point	Made by	Status
Not sure if "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" should be included in this section -they are considered mental illnesses, not identities. Maybe they should be included into a new section. Don't like too much how they are presented either -'srictly speaking', 'Some have argued in favor of the idea of "gender giftedness."' (Who? Plus weasel word), 'there is strong debate as to whether they should actually be considered a mental illness at all' (give me a ref then). The 'Many mental health care proffesionals...' paragraph needs to either get refs (and strike out weasel word 'many') and name names or be deleted altogether (sorry, it personally irks me when someone accusses mental health proffesionals of ignorance without providing sources for those statements. I'm not saying it's not true, just that you gotta back up those claims or refrain from making them).	Raystorm	Done Editwikipediausername 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]
Obviously need to cite sources.	Ashlux	Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]
Weasel words are used in numerous places.	Ashlux	Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]
Phrases like "these terms are explained below", "see 'Transsexual' below", etc. need to be by presenting the concepts better. I don't want to scroll down just to see what a word means.	Ashlux	Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]
Actually, merging with another section or creating a new section "History of transgender" might make sense. I don't like the idea of treating the entire article with a Western bias and neglecting non-Western concepts until the very end.	Ashlux	N I'm not sure this is doable. There is an enormous number of transgender expressions throughout the world and human history. The Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]
This article would be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. It seems to throw too many unfamiliar terms at the reader all at once (for example: "Transgender identity includes many overlapping sub-categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; consciously androgynous people; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens. Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue, are transvestic fetishists. These terms are explained below.").	Ashlux	N I'm not sure this can be fixed. I've dealt with this as best I can by moving bits to new sections and copyediting, but further reduction would be difficult without removing references to TS/CD/TV/AD/GQ/CG/DK/DQ/TVF/IS's altogether, which would gut the article. Editwikipediausername 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]
Transgender identity section is a bit tough to read. Too many technical (and not widely known) concepts presented at once seemingly arbitrarily. Someone not familiar with the topic might switch off at this point.	Raystorm	see above
I agree with Ashlux about the article seeming to go off-topic when discussing cross-dresser, drag, genderqueer...	Raystorm	see above
"Many people whom this article would define as transgender reject the term altogether"	Ashlux	Done
The article contradicts itself. At one point it claims "[transgender] would include anyone, male or female, who chooses to wear clothing normally worn by the opposite sex". A little later it claims transvestic fetishists are "Usually not included, because in most cases it involves a paraphilia and is not a specific gender issue".	Ashlux	Done
The section "Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures" shouldn't be a bulleted list.	Ashlux	Done
Kudos for the Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures section. Needs work (and refs), but it's a very good idea.	Raystorm	Done
I think clearly differentiating between sex and gender and transgender and transsexual early in the article would be helpful.	Ashlux	Done...well, done-ish. The TG/TS differentiation is there, but towards the bottom as it turned out.
In the Origins section, the sentence "This group is also sometimes known as transgenderists or "non-op transsexual people" — see the Transsexual section for more information" is confusing. What group are we talking about?	Ashlux	Done
Get refs for the citation needed tags (obviously).	Raystorm	Done
The transsexual section is a bit long, isn't it? I mean, there's a link to the main article. And it hasn't got a single ref.	Raystorm	Done
Contrast with sexual orientation section should be placed before in the article. Its first paragraph should clearly state why (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation. Refs needed again.	Raystorm	Done...well, done-ish. The TG/SO differentiation is currently point 4 in a list of 11
"Origins" can probably be expanded.	Ashlux	Done

]

Gunston Hall

Hello! Gunston Hall is a piece of Georgian architecture and was owned by George Mason, a United States Founding Father. I welcome all suggestions for improvement, but I am unsure of the reliability of a few of the references, so it would be great to get another opinion on that. Thanks! ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is generally structurally sound and gives a good overview of the subject. Some comments:

• Regarding references: there is something of an overeliance on the offical website, which will almost certainly express a sympathetic point of view. As you've stated the source explicitly in the most contentious cases this isn't so much of a problem, but more diversity in the references would be helpful. The one place where its use is a concern is for the statement no other rooms with chinoiserie woodwork are known to have existed in colonial America. I imagine you've found more or less all the online information about Gunston Hall, but if possible borrowing some of the print sources listed in the official site's bibliography from the library would be of use. I wouldn't use the FXVA reference as it is a tourist brochure, and the location of the mansion is sufficiently straghtforward not to require a reference anyway. The US Navy reference is a dead link at the moment.
• Things without references which could do with one:
  • The various carvings in the mansion were most likely the joint work of both William Buckland and William Bernard Sears
  • Of the bedchambers, the four corner rooms were considered the nicest. Also try to avoid using the word nicest.
• Provide metric conversions of distances in parentheses, and use words instead of figures for numbers of twenty or less.
• There are a few redundant uses of "also" and temporal terms such as "currently" which can be removed. A far better explanation of this than I can give is at
  User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy
  .
• The passive voice (could be, would have) is used a couple of times when the active voice would be more appropriate. e.g. change The attic could be accessed through one of the inner bedrooms to The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Working on it.... Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for the help! *Hopefully*, I have fixed all of the problems above, except for the lack of source variety / offline sources, which will take time. Would you be willing to take another look at it? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. One thing I neglected to mention before is that the section about the visitors centre and shop is a little brochure-like. The information about admission prices should be removed. It should state what is there rather than suggesting what visitors can do. Oldelpaso 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the section. Thank you so much!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have one piece of software that estimates the

]

• I started to copy edit this, but the ref system used makes it hard to do so (that is my problem) but to me the text seems very verbose, with ambiguities and too many " most likely"s and "according to"s (8 in fact) - if something is known as fact say so, if it not known state it as an accreditation or assertion. I don't see how the house can be mostly the design of Buckland if the exterior walls were finished when he first arrived on the scene. "According to Luke Beckerdite" - who is Luke Beckerdite? The text need to be sharpened and refined. It is an interesting page on a fascinating subject but is does need to be pulled together and made less repetitious
  Giano 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for your comments and edits! I have excised all uses of the phrase "according to" in favour of other forms of attribution. The most likelies and probablies often occur when the sources themselves are uncertain, because they are making guesses based on archaeological evidence. There is probably a better way to handle that, but I will have to look at it rather than just taking them out. Luke Beckerdite was an author of a chapter of an online book, which is cited. Anyway, I will do my best to more fully address your concerns when I have time. Again, thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not known for sure then something is an accreditation or an assertion. If someone is an author than say so in the the text. eg The author Fred Smith has asserted that..., or claimed that... on the basis of etc etc etc. Don't just suddenly drop in unexplained a strange name, even if he is listed in the refs. It is a good page on the whole - I'm sure it will get there.

Giano 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

See below. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great beginning to this article, but there are some things that need work, in my humble opinion:

• Besides a few sentences and the section on construction, the article doesn't really outline the history of the house and the grounds. Take a look at
  Giano's marvelous article on West Wycombe Park
  . There is just as much information on the family who occupied the house as there is on the architecture. Additionally, you might consider merging the section on the other Mason plantations into this history. Along those same lines, I would redirect the other plantations to this article unless the articles can be expanded and the plantations are notable enough to warrent separate mention.

A great deal of time is spent on the interior, with little on the exterior. I would create a section on the exterior and combine the interior sections (including basement). In addition, the Gardens and Outbuildings sections could be combined as well.

• The lone sentence on the construction of the house should be placed in the first paragraph of the introduction.
• There are portraits of both Mason and Buckland in their respective articles, these might be included as well.

Your work so far is quite admirable, but this still needs work before this goes for FAC. I hope this is helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice! I'll do my best to expand on the history, etc. I recently found a new source that should help with that.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, there will be enough text to add pictures of Mason and Buckland once I expand the article to include informations in some three new sources I found, listed in Gunston Hall#Further_reading.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor

Just glanced at some of the above. I would note that a sentence using "was" is also passive voice.

The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms

That's passive. The subject has to act on the verb for it not to be....

That sentence is hard to construct without passive. _______ accessed the attic through the inner bedrooms. That is how the sentence could be constructed non-passively. Not sure what the missing word would be though.

I hang around peer review a lot so I will try to complete a thorough review for you soon. IvoShandor 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 10:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mcginnly

What an interesting article, well written, nice images, well referenced - it's a good FA candidate I'd have thought. A few comments:-

1. Presumably this building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places - this should get a mention and the Category:National Register of Historic Places should be included, but please - no infobox!
2. Per
   [?]
3. In the last paragraph Other Mason plantations - 'George Mason' recurs too much in the text - maybe replace with 'his' and 'he' where possible. (I know there's several G Masons but it gets a bit repetitive)
4. I wonder whether its worthwhile combining the rather short 'outbuildings' section with the 'garden section' into a 'Gardens and outbuildings' section?
5. Unlike other 18th century houses of Gunston Hall's stature, the layout of the second floor is unlike the layout of the floor below - 2 'unlike's and 2 'layout of's - maybe replace the second clause with 'the layout of the second floor is entirely dissimilar to the floor below'
6. It's difficult to imagine the 'rococo, chinoiserie, and Gothic' interiors - these certainly aren't evidenced by the rather sedate image of the corridor - are there no images of these rooms we might be able to include?
7. 'Although chinoiserie was popular in Britain, the Gunston Hall museum website says Gunston was the only house with this decoration in colonial America.[7]' - No need to include a mention of the website in the text and provide a citation - one or the other.
8. 'In November, when Buckland arrived, the exterior walls of Gunston Hall were probably complete' - if it's 'probably' we need to cite who asserts it was probably complete - or is this our own assertion?
9. There's a few mention of 'private, non-public rooms' - surely a private room is, by definition, non-public? redundancy. It's probably better to include a short paragraph explaining how the house would be used at the time, for entertaining etc. and how the house was split between those functions and those for the family's habitation.
10. I'm personally quite interested in
    Servant's quarters
    and the way they are integrated into the public/private plan of such houses - you mention the outbuildings providing accomodation for slaves - but where was the kitchen in relation to the dining room - how was the food transported there - where was the laundry?
11. Ideally a plan would be great. I'm happy to draw one up if you have any information I can go on? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am starting to make changes per you. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made some changes, but some of your suggestions will take more time. I should be able to add more pictures when I add more text. I have found three new potential sources since the peer review started, which are currently listed in Gunston Hall#Further_reading. HABS provides a lot of pictures, so finding a picture that shows architectural detail won't be hard. However, all the indoor photos are greyscale.

HABS also provides architectural drawings, however they do not scale well to small sizes. They should be public domain, so perhaps you could make them readable at sizes suitable for inclusion in the article? That would be most appreciated. See first floor, second floor, basement, house and garden, and grounds. Of course, I doubt there is need for five plans, but perhaps you can decide which are most important. Note that you will probable have to download the TIFFs in order to be able to read the text.

Unfortunately, archaeologists can't seem to find the slave quarters. One of the new potential sources seems to provide a lot of information about the activities that occurred at Gunston Hall Plantation, although it is often unclear if it is talking about GHP specifically, or plantations of that time period in general. I won't be able to use it until I go to the library again. It provides information about the crops grown, goods produced, why the plantation is situated near the Potomac, etc. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probablies

The uncertain statements in the second paragraph of Gunston Hall#Construction, and how best to attribute them, seems to be a popular point of discussion. Perhaps repeating the reference at the end of every sentence will do? Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

Another rewrite in the vein of

]

Kirill Lokshin

This is an excellent article; it should be ready for FAC shortly. A few minor formatting points to fix, though:

• The templates at the bottom would look better after the references section rather than before it, I think; they interrupt the flow too much, otherwise.
• Are author names available for the various newspaper articles being cited?
• The mix of citation formats caused by the templates is somewhat messy; I would suggest moving to a common format by hand-formatting the citations. (But this may be a point of personal preference, so you shouldn't feel obligated to do this if you prefer the template-generated ones.)

Other than that, this looks very good; keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the great comments. I'll move the templates. As for the author names, I include them when I have them... but mostly I don't have any bylines. I'm sorry. (I have PDF scans of the articles so if there were there, I would see them. Ah well.) For the different citation styles, I agree with you that the mixture of newspaper/journal/book citations templates looks poor. BUT, I'm hoping that someday the template maintainers will fix that rather than hard-coding the citations now. Again, thanks for your comments. JRP 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolism

Recently expanded into what I hope is a comprehensive and broad review of the chemical basis of life. Expert and non-expert comments and criticisms would be very welcome. TimVickers 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Now nominated as a FAC. Nomination page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metabolism. Thanks for all the feedback! TimVickers 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyris

Excellent depth and breadth of content! All content seems accurate and well referenced. Good NPOV (ie. not concentrated on human metabolism!) with good coverage of the very important, but overlooked, bacterial metabolism. There are a coupe of minor issues I have, which will be changed when I get the time :) :

The table in

polypeptides and presents disaccharides

as a polymer.

Fixed.

Metabolism#Thermodynamics of living organisms is a bit ugly - with my physics background I hope to be able to clarify and clear this up.

Sure, I was trying to write it for an non-expert reader with a biological slant, perhaps it is too simplified?

The problems a combination of slightly too simplified and some unusual terminology, chaos in place of disorder for example. - Zephyris _Talk 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolism#Regulation and control could use a basic example - insulin regulation of glycolysis/gluconeogenesis in liver/muscle cells?

Good point. I'll work on that this evening. TimVickers 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New paragraph and diagram on insulin added. TimVickers 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice :) - Zephyris _Talk 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might attack Image:Metabolic pathways small.png to make it link to the processes it presents...

All in all brilliant, thanks to the massive improvement by TimVickers. - Zephyris _Talk 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos

Looks great—well-written, well-referenced and quite comprehensive. A few comments:

• Under "Key biochemicals":
  • "...polymers such as DNA proteins." DNA and proteins? Am I reading this wrong? :)

Typo!

• • In the "Coenzymes and cofactors" subsection, I feel a bit more space could be devoted to cofactors: explaining more explicitly what they are and perhaps giving a few examples?

These have been re-divided into "coenzymes" and "Minerals and cofactors"

• • Image:Hemoglobin.jpg would be better as a high-resolution PNG. I realize this image is used on several pages, so perhaps making a better version would be a good idea—it could then be used throughout WP;
  • "In "Minerals": "...nerve and muscle function as these cells..." This sounds a bit off to me.

Reworded.

• Under "Anabolism":
  • In the "Proteins" subsection: "Amino acids are made into proteins by being joined together in a chain by peptide bonds between their amino and carboxylate groups."—comprehensible, but a bit of a run-on sentence.

Simplified.

• Finally, under "History", should "ferments" really link to vitalism?

No, removed. Thanks for the comments. TimVickers 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, Image:A thaliana metabolic network.png—awesome.

I can't find anything seriously amiss with this article, but then again this is the non-expert review :) I personally think it's excellent, if a bit long (at 70 kB)—I'd look forward to comments from other reviewers. I presume you're aiming for FA? Fvasconcellos 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, but it will need polished first. TimVickers 00:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to do a remake of the haemaglobin pictures, highlighting the haem groups and their binding to the protein backbone. - Zephyris _Talk 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new picture! TimVickers 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB

• Overall another quality article. My largest problem here is that the article does not always to follow it's own structure. While it is largely structured to deal with catabolism and anabolism separately, the text seems flow more topically with processes being discussed if they follow the more specific topic no matter which heading it happens to fall under. This makes me wonder if the article would be more natural if was structured differently. Maybe have two small section on the general concept of catabolism and anabolism and then proceed topically. Carbohydrates are built by anabolism how by who and used in catabolism how by who. Proteins are built by anabolism how by who and used in catabolism how by who. Lipids, minerals, etc. Otherwise keep the current structure but clean it up so you are strictly dealing with catabolism under the catabolism heading etc.
  • "Lipids" Many other lipids are made in cells, notably steroids such as cholesterol Is part of this paragraph missing? I don't see any earlier mention of lipids being made elsewhere. I now understand you were trying to say "Many other lipids (not mentioned previously) are made in cells (as well)". I suppose this could be worded more clearly.

Reworded for clarity.

• • "Coenzymes" These coenzymes are therefore continuously recycled. I find this sentence confusing in the current context. I went on reading about ATP with idea it was that is was not actually consumed but left over to be re-used. After re-reading and thinking about it I now understand what you are trying to say, but it could be clearer.

Reworded for clarity.

• • "Catabolism" I am confused as to what actually constitutes catabolism in phototrophs (At this point), especially since the opening sentence reads: Catabolism is the set of metabolic processes that release energy by breaking down and oxidising food molecules. This opening paragraph needs to be inclusive of all five subsections following not just the first (animal centric) three.

Reworded to be broader.

• • "Digestion" Animals secrete these enzymes into their guts, while in microbes, digestive enzymes are secreted into the cell's surroundings. I find this a slightly misleading as it is suggesting these to methods are in opposition, but technically they are very similar. The gut is simply a specialized part of of an organism's surroundings, it is not technically part of the organism.

Well, these are in opposition, as microbes don't have guts. It doesn't actually say anything about any mechanistic differences, only the obvious anatomical one.

I suppose I am reading this more like "Animal secrete these ezymes [internally] while in microbes, digestive enzymes are secreted [externally]" with many readers possibly misled on the fact that in this context internal to organisms = external to cells. But this is very slight so don't worry about it.--BirgitteSB 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought of something here. What do you think of: "Microbes simply secrete digestive enzymes into the cell's surroundings, while animals only secrete these enzymes from specialized cells in their guts"--BirgitteSB 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Reworded as per suggestion. TimVickers 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Carbon fixation" Now you have basically labelled photosynthesis (as a lay reader might understand it) as catabolism (In plants, photosystem II uses light energy to remove electrons from water, releasing oxygen as a waste product) and anabolism (Photosynthesis is the synthesis of glucose from sunlight, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product) within four paragraphs. Somehow you must differentiate these processes to the lay reader.

This is a tricky one, any suggestions?

Rearrange the article to handle light energy topically? This is the real problem with the article: to seperate catabolism and anabolism you must assume the reader has some understanding of things like photosynthesis as a whole. Because when you try to explain photosynthesis you end folowing the energy from one process to another. So I really think the only solutions are to A) not explain photosynthesis as a whole B) Rearrange the article to follow various processes through their cycles (Photosynthesis as whole, Protiens manufactured and digested, Fat tissue stored and then used, etc.)--BirgitteSB 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That class-by-class approach as it's own problems, since it will then be hard to make broad generalisations about the features shared between different parts of metabolism and instead turn the article into a laundry list of metabolic pathways. The two possible approaches each have their own advantages and disadvantages. I've tried adding a new lead to the sunlight capture section to differentiate the two processes for the lay reader. TimVickers 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Carbohydrates and glycans" Although the fat in adipose tissue is a major store of energy, the fatty acids in these stores cannot be converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis as vertebrates cannot convert acetyl-CoA into pyruvate. This qualification confuses me. Do only vertebrates have adipose tissue or can fatty acids actually be converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis in some metabolisms? Also is after long-term starvation, humans need to produce ketone bodies really limited to humans? On a separate note wouldn't conversion of fatty tissue to glucose really be catabolism anyways?

Reword, broaden, the classification could be argued either way, since the breakdown to acetyl-CoA is catabolic but gluconeogenisis is certainly anabolic.

• • "Xenobiotics and redox metabolism" Do xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes act significantly differently outside of humans? If not it might be best to first explain the general three-step process and then mention which enzymes are particularly used by humans. More information on different methods of dealing with this issue would be nice.

Added material on microbial xenobiotic metabolism and biodegradation.

• • "Thermodynamics of living organisms" I wonder if this whole section is really most appropriate in this particular article. It certainly breaks the flow of the article for me.

I think I need it, since this is an area of research and relates to the discussion of energy flows in all the above sections. Originally, I had this at the beginning. Maybe it could be merged with another section?

• • "Evolution" When talking of the loss of metabolic pathways it might be good to reiterate the previously mentioned example of essential amino acids.
  • "History" This section needs the most work. It seems to lack focus overall . What is important to understand about the history of this topic?--BirgitteSB 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I was just thinking a way to improve the history section might be to change to simply a Historiography section. Then you do not have to worry about how to relate events but only papers.--BirgitteSB 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem I faced with this is that it is so broad! It will have to be a history of the first few hundred years of biochemistry in a few paragraphs. Daunting, to say the least! TimVickers 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyris II

• Would it be worth having a section on the significant differences in metabolism between organisms? A table of comparison of different metabolic pathways/major metabolic products or modified versions of Image:Metabolic pathways small.png may be suitable.
  • Further to the above, indication of the different metabolic processes tissue to tissue would be usefull (though maby more appropriate in
    human metabolism or metabolome
    .
• Metabolism#Investigation and manipulation could use a clear definition of metabolome.- Zephyris _Talk 08:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are both excellent ideas, but would indeed fit best in a Human metabolism article. In this article I've tried to make a broad generalisation of metabolism in all organisms and point up the differences as I go along. To be comprehensive a table we would need bacteria, archaea, protists, animals and a plant.

added to Anabolism section. TimVickers 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolic process	Bacteria	Archaea	Protists	Animals	Plants
Photoautotrophy	Common	Common	Common	Absent	Ubiquitous
Photoheterotrophy	Rare	Rare	Rare	Absent	Absent
Chemoautotrophy	Common	Common	Rare	Abscent	Abscent
Chemoheterotrophy	Common	Common	Common	Ubiquitous	Rare

Coolios (m:sp: abscent ---> absent) - Zephyris _Talk 18:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon I of Bulgaria

I'd appreciate any sort of review, but a thorough review of the entire article will be just perfect. I'm totally determined to bring this to FA, so feel free to be as critical as possible :) I've submitted it at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading because I'm not a native speaker, but still, don't hesitate to comment on the quality of the prose too. In short, if there's anything with the article that bothers you, let me know. Todor→Bozhinov 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bcasterline

Interesting article. Some comments:

• Citations in the intro are unnecessary if that information is available later in the article (which most of it should be per
  WP:LEAD
  ).
• I wonder if "Late rule" can be reorganized into different sections. Right now it's sort of an unconnected jumble of paragraphs.
• Some grammatical/wording issues I couldn't sort out:
  • "Simeon did not trust the Byzantine envoy, sending him to prison and ordering that the way of Byzantine navy in the Danube be fenced with ropes and chains..." =? "Simeon did not trust the envoy and, after sending him to prison, ordered the Byzantine navy's route into the Danube closed off with ropes and chains"
  • "together with the seditions in southern Italy..." =? "together with revolts in southern Italy"
  • "The Bulgarian regiments attacked and again defeated the Byzantines, destroying some of their last units and withdrawing to Bulgaria." Rework the "and withdrawing to Bulgaria" part.
  • I would replace the word "force" (as in "forcing Simeon to prepare for war") with a less emphatic alternative. It seems dubious to me in terms of POV/OR -- in that example, was he really forced to go to war?

Certainly can't complain about too few references: in fact, I wonder if it's really necessary to have so many inline citations. You might consider listing some of the most important texts just as references, leaving the citation of individual page numbers for the more controversial claims. But wait to see what the people at FAC have to say. -- bcasterline • talk 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'd personally like to keep the references in the lead, even summaries should have citations in my opinion, and there are some parts that just wouldn't fit well enough outside the intro to be referenced there.

Not sure if "Late rule" is a jumble, it's just that Simeon's actions of the time were somehow very complex and often difficult to understand and arrange chronologically. Still, I tried to sort things out a bit by separating the section into two.

As for "force", I noticed I've used the word far too often and substituted it at least five or six times, often with a milder synonym. I've also reworded the other parts you mentioned. My sources often explicitly say that he was forced to wage war, but I guess Greeks would have a different point of view on that matter ;)

I don't think having too many inline citations could ever be a problem. I've specifically cited the more "controversial" parts. Todor→Bozhinov 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chana School

• Looking to bring this article up to GA status, to which it will be submitted after this review. Any comments and/or edits would be appreciated.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronbo76

I had hoped someone else would be the first to review. So far, nadie. A couple of quick recommendations:

• Is this a museum? It is a museum; If so, needs a cat. Done

• It's not a museum in the traditional sense, in that it doesn't have hours, it's not really "open" or "closed." It is kind of a place where they take field trips to and such. But yeah, Category:Museums in Illinois looks like the best bet.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Know the type. However, in the article and at one of the links it is called a museum. Some museums like this are used mostly by schools for field trips as you mention. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pictures look as if black and white. First good/great because it makes it look like a period piece. But, the color on the rest is subdued. Recommend reshooting to bring up color/contrast.

• Ah yes, the morning sun and a crappy camera.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• I replaced one image with a slightly better one I had on Commons.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• In first paragraph, the article states there are six registered sites with five listed. Might as well list them all. Done

• Just went ahead and removed the extraneous information, it was a remnant of when the article was a stub.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Good call. The cat at the bottom of the page links to registered sites in IL. Don't know if there is a separate break-out cat for this county, etc. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't, just the city cat and it is part of the county cat, but only Cook County has its own Historic Places cat in Illinois, the others just don't have enough places, not to say some don't have a lot.A mcmurray

• Red wikilink for bell house - go with Bell tower or cupola. Done
• The perpendicular addition is mentioned twice. Once in the initial paragraph and near the end. Could stand a copyedit to shorten it in the first paragraph (one line = it feautures a perpendicular addition unique to period). Done
• Would look at the Manual of Style to see how the dates are formatted for the references (should it be notes or references?); in most articles I see, the first time a date is seen, it is formatted for user preferences (to include references). Done

• This and the next concern are aspects of the MOS that only became familiar with after the article was complete, will alter accordingly.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• Dates. Lots of years mentioned but no hard and fast dates. Dates that read as of 2006 or the 1950s can be formatted. See the MOS again.

• I don't generally link straight years without dates, would you recommend I do in some instances?A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Straight dates are not linked (you are correct). What I meant, was that if some hard dates like when the school opened on Month day, Year; that or other dates could be linked. Usually hard dates as when it was moved, restored, etc are available. The as of Year formatting is a recent change that had been previously used. It is used to link important generational dates (if I remember correctly). The 19th century dates that could/are referred to as such should be linked IMHO but with MOS consultation. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had to rate this article, it would be Class A, Mid. Don't think that is GA. Not sure. Recommend a copyedit.

• Will receive several copy edits before submission.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

• More research will be required but I should be able to come up with a couple of dates.A mcmurray

• May want to get other project tags like architecture tag (I know they do buildings and bridges). Do not know if the schools project would be interested. I have their tag on my userpage. There is probably a museum project and maybe even a parks project.

• Architecture freaks out if buildings don't have "worldwide" notability, but the others, go for it if you want, I will do it soon either way.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

Would have thought the reference to Italian reference would bring some interest. Never hurts to visit their project talkpage and ask. Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny thing is, I am a member and have received edit summary "talking tos" about it in the past, but I will drop them note, I don't think they like me much because I tagged a bunch of articles that they didn't cover in their scope. And with all the DYKs I get you'd think they would want the exposure. ; )A mcmurray

• Give me either a street address or approximate coordinates, and I will put a geolinks color scale photo link on it.

• 201 N. River Rd., Oregon, Illinois.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

From the description, I found the park but could not narrow down the building looking at it through Google maps. Would you have an idea N/S/E/W of that point and approximate distance it is? Ronbo76 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have the exact coordinates, not sure where to find that info other than Google Earth. The park is just off the river, along the road, which you said you found. It is on the east side of the river, across from the main part of the city of Oregon, IL. The school building itself sits next to a large stand of white pines, so those might be obscuring your view because they are on both sides of the building.A mcmurray

Geolink added. Figuratively speaking, I am in the ballpark but need someone to ID where the building sits. BTW, friendly copyedits taking place. Ronbo76 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fading fast. Will look at article in morning. Ronbo76 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any famous alumni? Any famous teachers?

• Good question, the history is a bit obscure. Will have to wait until my next trip to one of the small town libraries nearby.IvoShandor

• Is the architect known and does this person have a Wikilink?

• Architect doesn't appear to be known (per Google search), no wikilink existsIvoShandor

• Link transom, cornice, facade. Link the first occasion of gable (in same paragraph as gabled). DoneIvoShandor
• A dollar sign is linked in the article. Isn't there a better link for dollars USD that formats the number to user preferences? DoneIvoShandor
• Search for south face. Recommend southern facade. DoneIvoShandor
• Water stand is mentioned. What is that?

• Assuming like the modern plastic ones that hold the Culligan man's offerings. Not positive, no internal link available and there wasn't anything strikingly similar at Category:Water, hard to say.IvoShandor

Looking at it again, it is probably a water basin or sink. That was probably very modern back then. I wonder if that could/should be emphasized. Keep water stand and link it to sink. Ronbo76 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're pretty sure that is what it is, I think that would be a good idea.IvoShandor 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that is what it is. Gotta remember, back in those days running water was a big thing. If they had an outhouse, no sink drains were probably initially available. If you remember old Westerns, a pitcher along with a metal/ceramic bowl was used to wash hands, face, etc. The water stand as written into the article (which I presume came almost directly from one of your sources or references), probably refers to a free standing sink ala podium that had a drain leading outside. We 21 first century take hot & cold water, electricity and phones for granted. Back in the day, that was the latest and greatest thing next to sliced bread. Ronbo76 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Will link. DoneIvoShandor 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if the water stand still exists, a picture would look nice in a gallery. I still recommend reshooting some of the pics to get better contrast. Ronbo76 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any See also(s) available? Ronbo76 12:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly the other sites on the Register in the city, maybe some other one room schoolhouse in Illinois, or History of Education. Will come up with something.IvoShandor 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources? Good referenced notes. But, in most GA, a separate source is available. Does not have to be online. Ronbo76 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Print sources aren't necessarily needed (take my recent GA Joseph F. Glidden House), and the last two (and one being the most heavily relied upon) started life as print only, they have simply been transferred online, which makes verification all the easier IMHO, same with those Glidden House refs. I would like to find more sources, but as I said, as a rather obscure item, the Ogle County small town libraries are my only bet really. I am not sure about the museums openness. Though it would be cool to find out. I will look into it.

• Recommend gallery. Also, if the museum does period days with children dressed in role costumes, pictures of that would be nice. Then again, if this is done, the museum might have info on notables. Several museums/historical sites in California have these type history days. If pictures of costumed students taken, recommend they be posted in black and white with a note about being a re-creation. Ronbo76 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My plan was to link to a gallery on Commons. Watch, you'll see in a few minutes. : )IvoShandor 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend another editor from Illinois Project review my comments on Talk:Chana School and re-rate this article. Ronbo76 12:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary review break

Just thought I would note, I greatly appreciate all of your assistance on this Ronbo. IvoShandor 13:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As a last note. This article will be going to Good article candidates now, I am archiving this peer review. Before GAC though, I have submitted a request to the League of Copyeditors for a good copy edit or two. Should help. We shall see. IvoShandor 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cholangiocarcinoma

I'm looking for feedback on the organization, prose clarity, usefulness, and completeness of this article. Any public-domain images that could be added would be highly appreciated. MastCell 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an impressive CT and ERCP image from today. Will add soon or e-mail to you -- 74.12.86.222 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great - thanks. MastCell 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

• Very interesting. Some comments:
  • Lead is very short and could be expanded.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • You could explain more what the significance is of the "obstructive picture" - I think this is related to a question I had further down. Since
    obstructive jaundice redirects to jaundice
    , I'd like to see more about what makes a doctor suspect an obstructive cause.

Added a (brief) description of how liver function tests may help differentiate an obstructive cause of jaundice (such as cholangiocarcinoma) from an inflammatory/infectious cause (e.g. hepatitis). Perhaps when I get around to it, more detailed info could be added to

liver function test. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• • THe mass of footnotes in the epidemiology section could be condensed. The ones that aren't cited elsewhere can just be fused into one note with multiple references.

Done. Excellent suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The risk factors section is a list that happens not to have bullet points. This needs prosification.

Gave this a shot. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • There could be more explanation of why PSC is a risk factor, assuming that some mechanism is known. Since it's such a major risk factor, mentioning its prevalence and cause would also be useful.

Tried to address this - the mechanism is really not well-understood as best I know or can find. I debated how much info on PSC to include, since it's so tightly linked epidemiologically, but in the end I didn't want to duplicate a lot of info from the primary sclerosing cholangitis article. The disease is inflammatory and believed to possibly be autoimmune (given its association with the autoimmune disease ulcerative colitis, for example), but even that much is somewhat controversial and murky. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Blood tests section - write out (and ideally explain) CEA, and clarify the question of whether it's the serum levels that aren't sensitive enough (not elevated that much above normal) or the tests that aren't sensitive enough to detect the elevation reliably. These refs can be condensed too.

Condensed refs and tried to clarify; there are some conflicting data, but in general blood tests (CEA and CA19-9) may be a useful clue in supporting a suspected diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, but they lack the sensitvity/specificity for general screening. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Write out 'laparotomy' and use the current link text as an appositive explanation. I don't know if there's a 'standard', but I hate seeing jargony words obscured like that.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • What's the direct cause of death in patients that die of this?

In general, the cause of death in people with advanced cholangiocarcinoma is either

attribute those fairly commonplace observations. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• • It sounds like the Klatkin tumor could fit into the text, one-item see also look wimpy.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not sure you really need to link March 2007; that page has nothing relevant on it.

Done. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - those are all good suggestions. I'll start work on them and strike them through as I think I've addressed them (feel free to comment further or unstrike them if you think the fixes are unsatisfactory). MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Two quick comments:

• Could stand a few
  WP:DASH
  fixes. Do we have a guideline on ranges of percentages? "30%-60%" looks right and weird at the same time—I'd like guidance :)
• Caroli's syndrome should be linked or explained.

In my humble opinion, this article is GA quality, as is. Do you intend to nominate it, or expand and go straight to FA in due time? Fvasconcellos 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the dashes. I was hoping Caroli's had its own page (perhaps it should, but it doesn't), and I don't know enough to write one up without putting in some serious research which I just haven't had time for. Maybe for now I'll insert a short appositive description. I would eventually like to get it into FA status; hopefully it's not too far away. Perhaps I'll go ahead and nominate it for GA, since it may take quite some time at my current rate to address all of the little things that need to be done to get the article into really sparkling shape. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: there is an article, under Caroli disease. I've created the appropriate redirects. It's just a stub but at least fleshes out the disease a little. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I've hit most of the suggestions, and I think there are no major omissions. I'm going to go ahead and nominate it for FA status, and see what the reception is. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of Death (song)

Second peer-review, going for FAC soon, would appreciate any feedback, thanks. M3tal H3ad 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

• Comments;

• Here is a Monstrosity interview where the interviewee mentions the band covering 'Angel of Death', which should satisfy verifiability. It appeared on their 1999 album In Dark Purity - the media section of their official site verifies this. LuciferMorgan 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This Blabbermouth post verifies an Argentine Slayer tribute CD called "Al Sur Del Abismo (Tributo Argentino A Slayer)", where a band called Asinesia covered the song. LuciferMorgan 08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) M3tal H3ad 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sample currently used doesn't qualify as fair use because it is 30 secs. Per

]

• From an IGN review of War at the Warfield;

"When he was tearing through "Postmortem" and "Angel of Death," I was waiting for him to go from his baritone growl to that air raid siren shriek, but it didn't happen." LuciferMorgan 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caribbean drums

Exhaustive or pretty close to it. This list clears up a lot of confusing terminology (slightly different words used on slightly different islands for slightly different drums), I think, and is easy to use. Suggestions very welcome, as I hope to bring this to

]

• It would be great if the entries marked See Foo where wikilinked with a html anchor to go straight to that refered entry. I don't know the exact template for doing that on WP but there should be one. I also think it would nice if two more columns were added one for number of heads and one for head material. It took me clicking on a link to figure out what was meant by "Use". Maybe "Music" or "Genre" would be a better description?--BirgitteSB 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a template that does that, but it would be nice. I'll take a look around and see if I can find it. I'm wary about adding more columns because I don't want to squeeze it too much - but these're almost all single-headed, I think - most of them don't mention it because that's the norm, but head material might be reasonable. I'll see if I can cook up something this weekend. I agree that the "use" heading is subideal, I've changed it to "tradition", but I'm not committed to that. Tuf-Kat 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would be great to make the columns sortable like List of Pennsylvania state parks.--BirgitteSB 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's neat! Tuf-Kat 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided not to add any additional columns. Some drums don't necessarily have a traditional or especially common head material, and some can even be either double- or single-headed in different circumstances, depending on the maker. So, I think either of those columns would be of dubious value. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homer's Phobia

The goal is to turn this into a FA, in the same style as Pilot (House) and the current FAC Cape Feare. Any suggestions for improvments, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are needed. Is the "Gay steel mill" image decorative fair use? Or is it fine? And any suggestions as to how to increase the lead's sixe? As said any input is greatly welcomed. Gran2 18:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite good, but it could use some work. I think words like offbeat in the "Synopsis" section are a liitle bit POV, and we could improve some parts of the "Synopsis" section in terms of formality in phrasing. As for the citations and factual accuracy, I think it has reached as far it can go, so it wouldn't take long to promote it to featured status.--Orthologist 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean up. As for "offbeat" I personally think that it is okay, but if it was replaced is there an eqivilant word that couldn't be considered the slightest POV? Gran2 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. In this case, it should be best to follow the standard presentation of fictional persons; we should write that he is portrayed as eccentric. This is not POV, as Homer wonders "how he can be a grown man and still like toys".--Orthologist 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word, used to describe John, appears to have been removed/changed anyway. Gran² 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really read it, but my first glance suggests it's good. I'm unsure what the MOS says about DVD commentaries, but it seems a stretch to credit each speaker separately in the References. (Does that make sense?) It might be better to have footnotes refer to the minute and (approximate) second in the commentary, which would be a bit more informative. Also, people at FAC seem to like a citation even for plot sections. Lastly but most importantly, the Reception seems a little anemic, although I'm unsure specifically how to expand it. Was there any TV Guide coverage? How about articles in the Advocate or other major publications? Surely someone notable railed against the episode, and that should also be mentioned.--Monocrat 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything right now, but I will look into this later. So from what you are saying it needs a paragraph on "pre-show build up"? Also as for people running against it, I think it was only the censors who tried to pull the plug, which is mentioned extensively in the Prodcution section.Gran² 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily "pre-show build up," but if you have such material (was there a media campaign or lots of news coverage?), add it to Reception or Production or wherever it fits best. As for railing against the episode, I mean more that preachers or conservative pundits who condemned the episode should also be covered.--Monocrat 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I spent a while searching and all I found was that a guy used it as evidence in his lawsuit against a Russian TV network, stating that he wanted The Simpsons to be banned from airing as it promoted homosexuality. I've put it in the article (obviously in more detail) as it seemed pretty interesting. If anyone else can find any other info out, that would be good. Gran² 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the synopsis, removed the second image, add a cultural references section, and expanded the lead. Any other suggestions are most welcomed. Gran² 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is one of the first feminist texts in Britain. This page has reached GA status and I am aiming for FA.

]

You could link to wiktionary some of the big/difficult/unusual words, like commensurate. I find the way the two portraits are set out on the page distracting - can you put them both on the right? -Malkinann 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked "commensurate." Might you list other words you found difficult? I did try not to include too many ten-cent words, as they say. The reason I framed that paragraph with the portraits is because that is the paragraph in which I refer to Talleyrand and de Gouge. Putting both portraits on the right places the portraits adjacent to text that does not refer to them. To me, it does not look distracting, but perhaps if you could describe what is distracting about the placement, I could rethink my image strategy in general. Thanks.

Awadewit 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok.. allot, inflected, vindication. That's all I can see for myself... I find it distracting to change from reading across the whole 'page' to reading in a small space, framed by the two pictures. As it is, de Gouge is not mentioned until the very last part in that paragraph, and so her image could come last? I've also fact-tagged something in the article which I thought sounded a bit essayish.-Malkinann 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked "allot" but the definition for "inflect" is incomplete and Wollstonecraft's definition for "vindication" is more comprehensive than the dictionary definition. I don't want to mislead readers. I will think about removing the de Gouge picture entirely since she is less important in the paragraph and add in that citation. Thanks.

Awadewit 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments by Opabinia

Hope you don't mind me poking my proboscis in on another of your articles ;)

• Given the detail in the article about the difficulties in applying the 'feminist' label, it's a little awkward to see in the first sentence. Same question with 'bolster the feminist claims' in the revision section.

I know, I debated long and hard about that. If the decision were up to me, I would not describe VRW that way, but it is often described that way in short summaries and the book is included in courses on feminism. To not mention the book in a feminist context right up front would be deceptive; VRW is now read as part of the feminist tradition, however problematically. One reason I included that long quotation from Barbara Taylor in the "Feminism" section was so that readers could get a sense of how vexed a question Wollstonecraft's relation to feminism really is. The fact that Taylor, the scholar who has written the most recent comprehensive book on Wollstonecraft's thought, decided in the end to include the word "feminist" in the title of her book convinced me in the end that I had to include the word in the lead and elsewhere.

• Just to be sure: the first work was A Vindication of the Rights of Men, plural?

Yes, and I could have gone into a whole analysis of the point of the difference: "men," meaning actual men and "woman" meaning an abstract category, etc., but I thought that was going a bit far for this entry.

 Done That's actually an interesting point; it might be worth a sentence, if it's not too distracting and fits into one sentence. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You give a date for the Glorious Revolution but not for the civil war/execution, which would be useful.

 Done Will do.

• The matter of 'conferral' of rights - my naive view of the philosophy at the time is that among those who talked much about 'rights', they were seen as somehow inherent in the business of being a reasoning human being, and that it wasn't so much a matter of 'conferral' as of 'recognition'. That is, the rights existed whether governments officially recognized them or not. If that is a generally correct impression, then I think 'confer' needs to be replaced with a clearer word. (If not, then it's fine as-is, but if there's an article describing the evolution of rights in political philosophy, a wikilink would be good.)

Both views existed. One might think of the American Revolution as a war over this issue. Did the colonists have natural rights to which they were entitled whether or not the king wanted to grant them (they claimed these natural rights in the Declaration of Independence)? Those who supported monarchical rule would not, in general, argue that there were many, if any, natural rights. But this is a very complicated issue and one that I am not as well-versed in as I should be. Moreover, many groups were left out of this category of "the reasoning being" - children, slaves, women, often the poor - so, how natural could it be if the definition never included them? I will look at the sentence again, but these are very tricky issues (one reason this text is so very difficult to write on). Perhaps I will also include a "See also" section that links to some political philsophy and feminist articles at the end of the article.

Hmmm. I suppose it would help to know more about the argument advanced in Rights of Men, and what makes rights 'reasonable and just'. Maybe that really belongs in a Rights of Men article, but I guess what I'm wondering is whether there's a thread in Rights of Woman that boils down (er, pardon the mixed metaphor) to 'reasoning beings inherently have natural rights, and women are/can be reasoning beings'. At any rate, a see also section is a good idea. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ok, I'll add a paragraph on natural rights.

Awadewit 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Were women believed to be incapable of rational thought, or just very poor/limited at it? Maybe I'm projecting modern ideas onto the article, but it seems illogical for anyone to have argued that women were literally incapable of reason in its broadest sense.

Illogical it may be, but there it is. Some people argued that women were not as rational as men but the most popular view was that women were emotional rather than rational. There were biological arguments made to support this view - women's brains and nerves were different - they couldn't possibly think rationally because their nerves were so sensitive and they would be overcome by the sensations and emotions flooding them at every turn.

• There's a lot of 'she writes', 'she maintains', she argues', etc., where the verb varies but the sentence structure doesn't, except that sometimes it ends with a quote and sometimes with a paraphrase. It's hard to explain, and sort of counterintuitive, but this adds up to a 'telling, not showing' feel, mostly in the 'rational education' section.

I will look into this problem but I tend to try to use quotations in particular to "show" rather than tell, to let the author speak for herself.

Hmm. I've looked at this, but I'm not really sure that I see the problem. I think that the sentence structure varies at least a bit because some sentences begin with a dependent clause, some start with the subject, etc. I have tried to add even more variation, but I'm not sure how successful I was. Perhaps you could assist or write a bit more about what you mean? I do believe that I am "showing" her opinions regarding rational female education here.

 Done Like I said, it's hard to describe, and may be just me :) I really think the origin is the 'she argues/contends/implies/maintains' introductions to the quotes, but that's hard to avoid. (I would suggest less use of 'argue', though; I just skimmed quickly through the 'rational education' section and saw five instances of 'argue' and three of 'argument' in four paragraphs.) Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'to this end that she ought their liberation' - unusual diction, or typo for sought?

 Done Oops, I'll fix that. Thanks.

• '...should be modest (not just women)...' - the repeated parenthetical is awkward.

 Done I will work on that sentence.

• 'Be just then, O ye men of understanding!' - I could plausibly read this in isolation as more of a demand/battle cry/etc. than 'begging'.

 Done I will work on that section. Perhaps a different quotation.

• This article heavily relies on the sensibility article for an explanation of the unique meaning of the term at the time, but that article is not especially good.

 DoneI know, it is on my list of articles to work on. I will try to add some phrases in the article to explain sensibility. Unfortunately, it is a very hard term to define quickly.

I've added an introductory section on sensibility, but I'm still working on the wording.

•  Done I admit, I rarely think modern 'academic feminism' makes any sense at all. But the argument that Wollstonecraft 'fears the power' of female sexuality, or has 'violent antagonism' toward it is just weird. Can that argument be fleshed out a bit without giving it excessive emphasis? (Violent?)

It is a very prominent argument amongst a subset of Wollstonecraft scholars. It would be irresponsible not to mention it, but I do not want to overemphasize it, because it is not the focus of VRW scholarship. I can tell you that within the academy it is not weird, although it may appear so here. I will try to make it less strange to the general reader, but it is difficult. And yes, violent. I didn't want to quote the scene where Wollstonecraft warns women not to undress in front of other women which is interpreted as a violent fear of sexuality. I felt that such a passage would simply be misunderstood.

I think qp10qp described more clearly why that section sounds odd to me. Given what we're told about Wollstonecraft's position on sexuality, all this talk about power and violence sounds very disproportionate. ('Violence' sounds like an exaggeration in any case, but I've seen people write 'emotional violence' and apparently have a straight face while doing it. I imagine it's used in this context with some specialized meaning.) Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more on this. I'm still working on the language.

Awadewit 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

•  Done Did she make a specific argument for sending children of the poor to separate schools?

Yes.

'Can I ask you a question?' 'You just did.' ;) If it can be summarized briefly, I think that would be a good addition to the class section. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. "Yes/no" questions are so unhelpful, aren't they? I wasn't trying to be rude. I actually thought you just wanted to know.

I do this stuff all the time without thinking about it. Especially with 'Can you do x?' Yes. Will you? Well, if that's what you meant, why didn't you say so in the first place? ;) Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'In attempting to navigate the cultural expectations of female writers and the generic conventions of political and philosophical discourse...' - this sentence seems to take a position on the reasons behind her diction, and implies that the result was a deliberate choice. Was this genre- and style-blending really intentional?

One cannot get inside Wollstonecraft's head, of course, but it certainly looks that way. VRM does something similar. It is a mark of Wollstonecraft and many other late eighteenth-century women writers.

• 'Even more significantly, although female conservatives such as Hannah More excoriated Wollstonecraft herself, as Anne K. Mellor has shown,...' - this sentence is, though it might be disputed, rather awkward, in the sense that many clauses, each of which modifies in onion-like layers the one before, pile up on one another, separating subjects from their verbs. (Okay, that was fun to write ;)

 Done Will fix it.

• Even sparred with Barbauld? Why is that an 'even'? I suspect Barbauld needs an appositive description of some kind.

 Done Will do.

• 'Hostilely' ought to be a word, but is kind of on the boundary.

It is a word. It's even in the online Merriam-Webster.

 Done So is 'foolhardily' and even 'friendlily', but those are even more unpleasant. Not a big issue, but 'with hostility' would read better IMO. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'breaking free from traditional norms' has become something of a cliche. Can you be more specific in the last sentence?

 Done Well, I didn't want to go into a history of feminism on the page (not the right page), so I was trying to get broader. I'll see what I can do.

• Does the 'clear' I added before the references break anything? The image was shoving into the references for me.

Nothing weird happened here. What does that do?

{{clear}} forces all of the content in one section to be displayed before starting the next one. Images at the end near the references section often dribble down into the references and make the columns go weird. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there a glossary or list of wikicode somewhere on wikipedia?

I wish. If there is one, I've yet to find it; I first found out about this one, I think, from

Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Call me a snob, but linking words like 'commensurate' and 'allot' is... ugh. Over my personal line drawn between 'making things accessible' and 'spoon-feeding'. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the above review. On my Mary Wollstonecraft page, someone finally had to link "apposition" because random people kept changing it to "opposition" the day it was featured on the main page. It was inside a quotation, so even if they didn't know it was word, they should have been especially reticent about changing it. There is a note on the page that says something like "apposition is actually a word" or something like that which you can only see if you edit it. I really could not believe it. Feel free to remove the links. Please note that I did not link "vindication" as suggested above.

Thank you for all of your very helpful remarks. I always appreciate it when someone reads closely!

]

I linked "apposition" cos I saw the constant reverts on it... :$ Please remember the age of people who may be reading the article - I first came across the Rights of Woman when I was 15. It's a bit sad when you have to wiktionary-link words that you think are well-known, (my own 'ugh' - the word "aground" being changed to "around" in Great Barrier Reef) but it really does help younger readers follow along. -Malkinann 06:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate your linking because I was growing so frustrated with the constant reverts I was having to go through over that. I understand what you are saying - I teach freshman composition at a large state university. I could create an entire website with hilarious/sad mistkes. I do appreciate you looking out for this. I saw some report on wikipedia's average reading level. Apparently it is way too high for the general public. As I am sure you are aware, the New York Times is supposed to be at an eighth-grade reading level and that is the highest of any major newspaper.

Awadewit 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The general public is full of idiots ;) I don't have a problem with linking, really, if it'll stop misguided changes (though 'allot' in the middle of a quote looks a little odd). I don't really like it either, but I've never run across a need for it before; I guess people are a bit more reticent about mucking around with the science articles. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your assumption to be correct. The general public assumes they will not understand science. I, on the other hand, although not a scientist myself, do expect that I will be able to understand the bulk of a wikipedia general science page, so I complain quite frequently about undefined terms and jargon-heavy sections. :)

Awadewit 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Good. We need more smart people doing that ;) Especially on some of the more general science articles, it seems like the only feedback they ever get is from kids trying to get someone else to do their homework. Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by qp10qp

• I notice that one of my most disliked words is one of your favourites: “moreover”. I always find this intensifier obtrusive; sentences seem to improve when it is extracted. In my opinion it doesn’t actually mean anything—apart from, perhaps, “and”.

Roughly, it means "this sentence is more important than the last sentence" and I use it very carefully to delineate hierarchies of importance.

• “…to launch an attack against sexual double standards more broadly…”

 Done That “more broadly” feels too far projected from its verb. What about “a broad attack”?

Sure. My writing is always a little too verbose.

• “…for Burke, governments and societies consist of traditions that are the result of a social and political consensus—challenging those traditions would result in anarchy.”

 Done Is “consist” the right word? Also, I would tend to drop the dash and have a comma and “and”. It’s a matter of taste, though. I might even conflate the whole sentence, which contains repetitions.

I will work on rewording it, but the repetition is meant to emphasize the all-important idea of tradition in Burke.

• A blockquote for Talleyrand’s big quote? (Would have to move picture, though.) And maybe the "Let it not be concluded..." quote.

 Done I will play around with that.

• “That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman…”

Which came first?

I'm not sure and I'm not sure we know. I can try to find out. Why does it matter (someone else asked this question as well)? I try to make it clear that MW is responding specifically to Talleyrand but that these issues are live ones at the time. It would be very hard to prove that MW read de Gouge one way or the other.

This is becoming even more difficult. Even if I manage to find out what month de Gouge published (which I haven't yet managed to do, every book I look at just says the year), I'm not sure that I can easily find out when her work reached England. I'm just not sure it's worth all of the trouble for this article.

• “Unlike most philosophical writers of the eighteenth century, Wollstonecraft did not employ a formal structure in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.”

I felt a slight miscue here, as if the other philosophers were writing this book as well.

 Done I'll try and fix that.

I tried to fix this, but now the whole sentence sounds repetitive.

• “It also adopts a hybrid tone that combines the rational argument common to philosophy and the fervent rhetoric of sensibility.”

 Done The word “common” slightly disrupts the sense here, in my opinion, because it implies that the rational argument is common to the philosophy and the fervent rhetoric.

I'll work on that.

• “In the eighteenth century, it was often assumed…”

I never like sentences without an actor. And this sort of structure tends to call out for multiple referencing. Same with “Women, it was believed...” If Wollstonecraft says who assumed and believed these things, we should be told, I think, because the Talleyrand quote, however patronising, doesn’t make these points, as such. “Moreover, it was asserted…” is another example of this generalising structure.

But the point is Wollstonecraft was responding to a large cultural assumption. I have seen this criticism throughout wikipedia. Sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not. This is one of the times it is not. To cite who Wollstonecraft is attacking at this point diminishes her arguments; it makes it seem like she is only attacking a few writers when she is really attacking a social perception. Not all passive constructions are evil! (By the way, you will notice that later in the "Rational Education " section I mention she criticizes the works of Fordyce, Gregory and Rousseau in particular)

• “Wollstonecraft attributes the problem of uneducated women to men and “a false system of education, gathered from the books written on this subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human creatures.” “

The quote here doesn’t have a main verb.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Do you men that the quote would sound better if I changed "considering" to "considered"?

• “She thus makes the argument…”

 Done I don’t find that this sentence follows (in a “thus” way) precisely from what went before.

I'll check it out.

• “Conduct-book writers such as James Fordyce and John Gregory as well as educational philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argue that a woman does not need a rational education, are the objects of much vitriol in Rights of Woman.”

"Conduct-book writers" is the subject of the sentence, by the way. I can change this around, though.

 Done This sentence seems rather passive; I would reverse the order, with an actor at the beginning of the sentence. This whole paragraph strikes me as rather soggy because of the delaying of main verbs or subjects. So I would also bring the subject and main verb forward in:

• I don't want to make too many of the sentences the same.

 Done “Without this damaging ideology, which encourages young women to focus their attention on beauty and outward accomplishments, Wollstonecraft implies, they could achieve much more.”

Ok.

and in:

"Maintaining that wives could be the rational "companions" of their husbands and even pursue careers should they so choose, she contends "women might certainly study the art of healing, and by physicians as well as nurses. And midwifery, decency seems to allot to them . . . they might, also, study politics . . . Business of various kinds, they might likewise pursue."

Changing this one doesn't seem like a good idea because it moves from the general to the specific in a logical way.

• “She also maintains that schooling should be co-educational…”

 Done Proposes? (I know it’s difficult in an article like this to vary the necessary “maintains, contends, argues” vocabulary.)

Sure.

I put "proposes" earlier in the paragraph.

• “It is debatable to what extent the Vindication…”

Rather than depersonalise the subject of the sentence with an “it”, I would prefer to see an actor for the sentence: “Scholars/feminists/Smith and Jones have debated…” or whatever. Also I have seen FA reviewers (quite wrongly) mistake this phrase for an authorial hesitation.

I understand this criticism, but again, it seems silly to list all of the groups that have debated this issue. Such a list implies that no one else has debated it (such as students or the general public).

• “Her argument illustrated the sexual double standard of the late eighteenth century and demanded that men adhere to the same virtues demanded of women.”

 Done I’m not sure that an argument can illustrate—point out, perhaps, or expose. Maybe the “for instance” and “for example” in that paragraph is also a little repetitive.

Expose, sure. I'll work on the repetition.

• “While this may not seem [who to?] revolutionary, its implications are [now, or then?].”

 Done Dare I say it, essay style?

I will fix that.

• “Wollstonecraft famously and ambiguously states…”

I have to confess that reading the quote several times, I can make neither head nor tail of it. It does sound important, but I wonder if the reader needs a bit more explanation of it. I know that “virtue” had a special meaning in Racine and Corneille, and I suspect it does here too. “Her definition of virtue focuses on the individual’s happiness rather than, for example, the good of the entire society.“ I’m not sure that fits with her demand that men adhere to the same virtues demanded of women, which sounds as if it is for the good of the society.

I don't know if you've read VRW, but it is an extremely contradictory text. You can basically take any position on it and find something to support your opinion. I have tried to draw together the most accepted scholarly views here, but they are not going to be consistent because Wollstonecraft herself was not consistent (that is aside from the point that scholars never agree on anything - if they did, scholarship in the humanities would end). So, that you have found something internally inconsistent is not surprising.

I am reticent to explain the quotation for fear of an "original research" criticism. It is a difficult quotation, not an obvious one. That is why I included it.

• “As part of her argument that women should not be overly influenced by their feelings, Wollstonecraft emphasizes that they should not be bound by their bodies or their sexual feelings.[29] This particular argument has led many modern feminists to suggest that Wollstonecraft not only avoids embracing female sexuality, she fears its power. Cora Kaplan argues that…”

 Done I would have liked “not be bound by their bodies or their sexual feelings” to be elucidated more here, with perhaps some space given to what Wollstonecraft actually said. This is because, as it stands, I can’t quite see what justification the modern feminists and Kaplan have for the reaction quoted. I would have thought that the advice as summarised was mere common sense: have some emotional and sexual self-control. Clearly, there is more to it.

Ok, I will go down this road. The problem is, it tends to make very well-respected scholars look crazy or "weird" (as the above reviewer said) to the general reader. I was trying to accord their views some respect; their views make a lot more sense within a certain tradition of academic feminist theory which I cannot explain in detail here.

• “Others, though, have argued that this was a sacrifice…”

What does “this” refer to? This idea of Wollstonecraft’s (but an idea isn’t a sacrifice)? Or something in her life (no specific reference to her life in the paragraph)? An overlap between the two creeps into the paragraph with Kaplan’s quote, in my opinion. Does Wollstonecraft avoid embracing sexuality in her ideas or her life? (From your article about her life, I would doubt the latter. I find this confusing.)

Yes, the "this" does refer to an idea. She sacrificed female sexuality in her writings (at least until The Wrongs of Woman) in order to advance the cause of equality.

• “Johnson contends that Wollstonecraft is interested in reestablishing a republican ethos, one that contains strong, but distinct, masculine and feminine roles for its citizens.”

 Done What does this refer to? Why “reestablishing”? Is this a reference to classical republics? Are republics more likely to have clear masculine and feminine roles? Can an ethos “contain” roles? (provide? call for? create). If she wants clear masculine and feminine roles why does she want men to adhere to the same virtues as women? These two matters of republicanism and virtue/male-female roles are the ones that come over the most blurrily to me in the article's description of the book's themes.

In Britain, there had been a political tradition of republicanism (sometimes associated with the term commonwealthmen) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that slowly died away (although this narrative is disputed). Wollstonecraft is trying to re-establish this republicanism. Yes, an ethos and contain roles, in my opinion. There is a dichotomy in the VRW in how she describes men and women. As I try to say, she wants them to have the same fundamental rights (derived from having a soul) and live up to the same moral code, but that does not mean that she thinks men and women should fill the same positions within society. Repeatedly throughout the VRW, Wollstonecraft describes woman's primary role as mother and domestic care-giver. The problem is, different scholars emphasize different aspects of this (clearly, even I'm telling you how I read it, although I'm trying to be as objective as possible). Some emphasize the different roles and say MW is conservative, some emphasize the rights argument and say she is more "progressive," but most fall in between. It is simply not very easy to summarize or interpret her argument.

• “For Wollstonecraft, moreover, the individual is educated into republicanism and republican benevolence within the family; domestic relations and familial ties are crucial to her understanding of social cohesion and patriotism.”

 Done " "is" educated?” "Should" be educated? What is “republican benevolence”? From these hints, I’m really not sure what Wollstonecraft’s republicanism consisted of. The second half of the above sentence isn’t specifically republican, I’d say.

Yes, "educated." It's an older use of the word, but very Wollstonecraftian. Perhaps I'll expand this section a bit.

• “In many ways the Vindication of the Rights of Woman is inflected by a bourgeois view of the world. Wollstonecraft addresses her text to the middle-class, which she calls the "most natural state," and two of the virtues Wollstonecraft praises most often are modesty and industry. She is critical of the wealthy, attacking them with the same language that she uses to accuse women of worthlessness.”

 Done I’m presuming that modesty and industry are here taken to be middle-class virtues. But I think that should be made clear, or the second half of that middle sentence is a non sequitur. Then for me the structure here made it seem as if the wealthy (bad) were different people to the middle class (“the most natural state”).

Some here used to be different; someone has been doing some copyediting and removed my transitions, but yes, those were perceived to be middle-class virtues in the eighteenth-century and the wealthy are supposed to be different from the middle-class.

• “In attempting to navigate the cultural expectations of female writers and the generic conventions of political and philosophical discourse, Wollstonecraft, as she does throughout her works, constructs a unique blend…”

I expect this is to some extent Kelly’s, but for me it’s (sorry, ignore me, if you are bored with this) essay style. A point of view is ascribed to Wollstonecraft as if she was thinking like a modern feminist or political writer. In my opinion, the scholarly style of discourse should not be intruded into the third-person point of view of the biographical subject.

What you are touching on is the "intentional fallacy." You cannot know what Wollstonecraft was thinking, etc. Technically, all sentences in this article should then read "The VRW suggests..." rather than Wollstonecraft. Literary scholars know that no one is imputing anything directly to Wollstonecraft. If you have a beef with this sentence, you should have a beef with much more in the article. I did not sure "The VRW suggests..." construction throughout this article because it becomes far too cumbersome.

Can you construct a blend?

When one is speaking of genres, I believe you can, but do you have a better suggestion?

• “…she uses "I" and "you" as well as dashes and exclamation marks to create a distinctly feminine voice in the text. She even employs "autobiographical references."

 Done Why “even”? I’m sure the work has a distinctive feminine voice, but I daresay there were men who used these techniques as well (I’m not questioning the basic point—Kristeva’s idea that bodily drives are discharged in representation—just the stylistic examples offered here as evidence).

Dispute with Kelly, not me. Perhaps there were men who used this technique, but not the respected essayists or philosophers of the day. I think the point is that this "emotional" register would have been associated with women.

Fixed the "even."

• “…the short essay and the novel, genres often associated with women…”

Is that true, any more than with men? I’m wondering if the point being made here—that certain forms or styles of writing—are more feminine, is worth making in this context. It’s so easy to think of exceptions: Sterne with his own “highly personal” tone; Émilie du Châtelet with her scientific commentaries. If this is what scholars believe, then I think their names should be brought into the text, so that the reader doesn’t take these glosses for fact. Generally, I feel that the first paragraph of “Rhetoric and Style” doesn’t flow too well.

Yes, it is what scholars believe. Kelly specifically states this on the pages to which I refer. Would you like more citations. There are going to be exceptions. I think the idea is there is a "feminine" and a "masculine" style in addition to the thesis that women were tied to the novel. I'll work on the paragraph.

• “…she actually combines the plain, rational language of the political treatise with the poetic, passionate language of sensibility…”

I feel that is an excellent way of getting the general point over.

• “Wollstonecraft herself even comments on this effect.”

 Done I think a quote would go well here, so that the readers can judge for themselves what Wollstonecraft intended by her mixture of styles.

I think so to, but I've lost it. I didn't write it down in my notes and I'm trying to find it again. :) Is there an "insert quote here" tag?

• “Wollstonecraft never wrote the second part to the Rights of Woman…”

 Done I don’t think we’ve been told that the work was going to have two parts; this statement seems to assume that we know.

I'll work on introducing that idea earlier, but I don't think it's terribly important.

• “Both Edgeworth and Austen argue that women are crucial to the development of the nation…”

Do they “argue” this, or show it (I know they wrote letters, but novels don’t offer arguments, strictly speaking).

Um, novels most certainly do offer arguments, just not in that traditional philosophical way.

Adding examples of novels with arguments that should be obvious: 1984 and The Fountainhead and Brave New World.

• “Suddenly it seemed more possible to try living arrangements other than the traditional marriage.”

I find this sentence a little clumsy. Also redundant after the previous sentence, which I think would end the article better.

 Done I was trying to be more specific to address concerns brought up by the previous reviewer. I'll rework it again.

• I admire the article, and I think it could pass FA tomorrow (I would vote "support"), though we both know that FAC is not generally rigorous or populous enough, which is why I’ve been detailed here (please don’t hate me). Your articles are impressive. Do keep going, and feel free to ignore any of my comments.

qp10qp 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for constructive advice. I hardly "hate you." It is precisely this kind of review that I want. I won't be submitting this for FA for a few weeks. I want to work on it some more and I have some other editors that have promised to look at it. Thanks.

Awadewit 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, I did respond to your helpful comments on essay-style on my talk page.

Awadewit 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Just a small thing. Could you replace the smart quotes (“ and ”) with regular quotes (") for consistency? I'm sure a word processing program can do it automatically, but having the smart quotes makes it look distracting.
  ShadowHalo 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

They don't look any different on my computers; they only look different on the editing page. I am not going to chanage quotation marks so that the editing page looks pretty.

Awadewit 12:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·

I'd like comments on everything except the lead section, which I haven't really worked on yet. Assuming all goes well, I'd like to nominate for

]

Oh, and if anyone understands Borel summation well enough, could you suggest what a convincing illustration would look like? Melchoir 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems okay to me and it has some enjoyable aspects. However it pre-supposes some mathematical knowledge on the part of the reader. I wonder whether technical articles of this nature need some sort of "prerequisite" template that lists the knowledge required to understand the content? For the Borel sum illustration, perhaps a plot of the function ${\displaystyle e^{-2x}(1-x)}$ would suffice (with the enclosed area shaded)? Otherwise I'm not sure. Some of the other illustrations are not showing up in my IE browser, for whatever reason. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prerequisite template might be a good idea, but I was hoping that its purpose could be served by careful writing and well-placed links. Is there a particular area of knowledge that you think gets assumed before it is introduced and linked to?

I tried playing with a plot like that for the Borel sum, but I couldn't figure out how to make the connection with the original series.

SVGs sometimes appear blank to me for a day or so after they're uploaded, but the current ones ought to be stable. Is there a pattern to the ones that don't show up? Melchoir 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with little background in math, I'll tell you some segments that were unclear to me:

• The quotation from Euler under "Divergence" is not obviously relevant. Is it supposed to be a segue into the next section?
• Under "Stability and linearity": "...the series 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · can be expressed as a transformation of itself". What does that mean?
• When you introduce n and m (Under "Cesàro/Hölder") you might want to define them for clarity ("where n is some integer"?).

Good luck. Don't see too many math FAs. -- bcasterline • talk 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There are cultural reasons why one doesn't see too many math FAs; I'm hoping that a few examples will prime the pump for more.

• I'll think about better ways to use Euler's quotation.
• That sentence isn't supposed to have a mathematical meaning; it just sets up the next few equations.
• Yeah, I'll fix that.

Melchoir 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

…There, hope that helps. Melchoir 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the expression "transformation of itself" is not familiar to people without a background in math, you could try using terms that would be more familiar to more people. For example, use "difference" rather than "transformation". I tried to change your paragraph to make it more clear, and you can adopt as many or as few of the changes as you like. I'm pasting my version below. User:khollings 9 March 2007

Well… I know the section is titled Heuristics, but I'm not real comfortable with saying that "if it had a convergent sum, the sum should be 1/4". On the one hand, it's not mathematically meaningful, but it is the kind of sentiment with which people often speak of divergent series, and I could probably find a source for a similar statement. Would it enlighten or confuse the reader more? Anyone else?

Also, I've been intending s and h to stand for ordinary numbers. The notation is admittedly confusing, but there are problems with interpreting the equations among s and h as equations among series per se. Melchoir 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried this. How important do you think the extra step for (1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + · · · ) - (0 + 1 - 2 + 3 - · · · ) is? Melchoir 23:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to de-list this Peer Review now in favor of a FAC. If anyone has more to say, especially if I asked you a question above, please drop by

]

Nigel Kneale

I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the past couple of weeks, and would very much like to put it up as a FAC. Any feedback on how I could try and improve it to featured standard would be very gratefully received. Angmering 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply:

• I very much doubt there are any available free use images of Kneale. Certainly nobody can take one any more, anyway, given that he's dead, and even pictures of him as a young man would still be in copyright. So I don't see that there's any other option other than the fair use screengrab.
• I have added the persondata information, as requested.
• I couldn't find any examples of full dates which weren't properly linked?
• I don't think summary style would be appropriate here. The size of the readable prose is only 34kb, which I would have thought was perfectly acceptable, and it is very unlikely to ever get much bigger than that.
• The single weasel word example you mention is used in context of a cited example of an opinion held by the writer and critic Kim Newman.
• I have requested copyedits from several users, one of whom, User:Josiah Rowe, had already been through the article. I am hoping that others will have done so by the time the peer review period comes to an end.

• I hope that satisfies the automated concerns, anyway. Angmering 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

• "was best known" is twice used in the first two pars of the lead. Maybe you could vary a bit the prose there.
• "Kneale was born Thomas Nigel Kneale". Maybe a repetition. His birth name has already been mentioned and bolded in the lead.
• "His family came from the Isle of Man,[5] and returned to live there in 1928, when Kneale was six years old.[6]" An advice: Try not to overcite your sentences. Place inline citations at the end of the sentences, and cite in the middle of them only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis. You can also combine together citations instead of having them in a row ([1][2]). See ways of nicely combing citations in Tourette syndrome, and Battle of Edson's Ridge. Here, for instance, you cite twice in the same sentence the same citation without an obvious reason: "Written in 1965 while Kneale was suffering from a mystery illness and forced to stay in bed for a long period,[17] the concept started life as a drama serial for the BBC, before the corporation had second thoughts about the nature of the storyline and the possibility of copycat suicides;[17]"
• "Doctor Who was heavily influenced by Kneale's Quatermass serials at several points throughout its history,[5][34][81][82][83]" What's that?! Ugly! Five in a row!
• Maybe "Influence" could have a better structuring. For instance, you start with a too short prose sentence and a long quote. Does this give to the reader a first general idea about Kneale's importance and influence? Then the paragraph starting "Kneale never saw himself as a ... " is not about Kneale's influence, but about what Kneale believed for himself. Does this fit to the section? Doesn't interrupt its flow?

In general, the article is comprehensive and well-written. My only worry is that the reader might get tired with all these works, films etc. (accompanied with dates, details etc.) exhaustively analysed in the article's sections. But I don't think this can be a strong argument against FA status.--Yannismarou 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts. Some replies:

• Are you sure? I can find only one instance: "he was best known for the creation of the character Professor Bernard Quatermass."
• I have taken out the first instance, and left the mention of his first name until what was the second, where it's properly cited.
• Good point about those citations. I have dealt with the examples you mentioned, and some others.
• I agree about the titling of the "Influence" section — I wasn't sure about the title of it, but couldn't think of quite what else to call it. It was originally called "Legacy", but I wasn't sure that was encyclopedic enough. I have switched the first two sections of it, so that it no longer begins with such a short prose section. I disagree the entire Doctor Who paragraph is out of place there though, as it does state that Kneale's work was a major influence on that show.

Thanks again for your thoughts. I hope I have managed to address some of your concerns. Angmering 14:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Feare

I would like some comments on this episode article. The goal is to turn it into a FA and it is modelled after another FA Pilot (House). --Maitch 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There seems to be a recurring grammatical error throught the article. Gerunds take a possesive subject, not an objective subject. For instance, "...which results in him overreacting to several innocuous situations." should read "...which results in his overreacting to several innocuous situations." Nothing resulted in Bart, something resulted in overreacting which happened to be performed by Bart. Double check for this error. Jay32183 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. I did my best, but I am not a very good copyeditor. Both User:CanadianCaesar and User:Scorpion0422 has done some copyediting, so I do hope that it is alright now. --Maitch 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some additional copyedit work. Please be sure that the fair use rationales for the images are as specific as possible. It makes it easier for people not familiar with the subject to determine if the images do actually meet the fair use criteria. Jay32183 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot. --Maitch 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organic chemistry

There are some outstanding issues on the todo list:

• Verify: Much greater use of inline citation is needed along with a wider source of references
• Expand: Add images to beautify article (see Inorganic chemistry for an excellent example)

Apart from that, what else needs to be done? --Rifleman 82 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I fear that we might go too far with pictures: it should demonstrate something essential, as conciseness is more important. The old Engish adage comes to mind: "Is your question really necessary?" I feel that a drawing to show single, double, and triple bond compounds and about alicyclics in the same block as the aromatics to show the comparison would help, but I am not sure about the swimming beauty

LouisBB 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit

• I do not know what audience you were aiming for with this page, but I can tell you that for someone with only a passing familiarity of chemistry, I found this page a bit difficult to follow at times (particularly beginning with the "aliphatic" section). There were so many undefined terms that one would have to click on to understand the material. It is almost as if one has to have taken organic chemistry to understand the page. I will point to just one example - covalent bonding. While that is taught in many advanced high school chemistry classes, how many people remember exactly what it is? Since it is easy enough to describe in a sentence or two, why not do it? If you are aiming only for chemistry and biology majors, though, I am sure that it is more than acceptable.
• The history section should also probably have a consistent verb tense. It is a little jarring otherwise.
• Perhaps an illustration of a line function in the nomenclature section so that those unfamiliar with it will know what it is?

]

I fully agree with your remarks, and I shall make one or two suggestions

LouisBB 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS FOR COMPLIMENT +923013572221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.35.142 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zaireeka

Wikipedia:Peer review/Zaireeka/archive1

Zaireeka is now a GA. What can be done to push it to FA status? What can be done to improve the article in general? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JHMM13

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, JHMM13 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I restructured the article. What do you think? - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Omaha

• I would really like any and all kinds of feedback about this article. Content, clarity, tone, and POV are all important for me to learn about. Thanks. - Freechild 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a little too listy. For example; take the section on African American Culture, there's a nice intro to the section but then it peters out into a bunch of lists with little in the way of context. The "Notable African American cultural activities" section says that there are "numerous important institutions" but only lists one, the YWCA. Most cities have a
  problem solving 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It needs pictures. Looks like most of the NPOV concerns have been addressed. I agree that the article is 'listy'; perhaps some of these lists could be converted to narrtive form. I'd certainly be willing to help with that. This is a very good article overall. ObtuseAngle 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

Rather long, redundant, and advertising-laden. Unlike ObtuseAngle, I still see POV. We can't state our opinions, only other people's.

• Bordered by... lower case North South West East.
• Wikilink: zip code, state senator (perhaps rephrase as Nebraska state senator)
• "two areas are commonly differentiated among community members because of this in spite of being addressed otherwise" - huh? Desperately needs rephrasing for simplicity.
• " illustrate include" - again, huh? Give a date, and a citation of the specific source. How does the Census Bureau define North Omaha? Say.
• "long legacy governmental" - of?
• "Despite the following statistics" - previous, earlier...
• Give at the date the plan was proposed or accepted, at least one, possibly both
• "North Omaha has a range of important institutions that are working for a prosperous, educated, healthy, and sustainable community for all Omahans." Ack! Cut the advertising, please. Sounds like a Miss America speech, needs only "world peace".
• "homes which are good for the consumer-friendly" - Ack! You can probably cut the whole description of PCH down to 1 sentence and not lose any information
• "Girl’s Inc" - are you sure it's not Girls, Inc.?
• In fact, I would remove most of these entries except the truly exceptional ones. So it's got a Boys & Girls club and a Foodway, and lots of community organizations, so do lots of other places. Leave the museum and newspaper, but don't make this a link farm for area businesses and organizations.
• If Mildred D. Brown is the first female to found a US newspaper, she deserves a Wikipedia article
• "Star a corner stone" - is?
• "the only African American newspaper" - in what sense the only AA? Do you mean AA-owned, AA-focused, what? Does it cover local, national, or world issues?
• [14] website. - Strike the word and period.
• "Omaha's only African American history collection" - in what sense? The entries two above and one below are clearly AA history collections. Does it focus on AA in Omaha, in NE, in the US?
• Evergreen - write about the connection
• Amored - Armored?
• What does "alternately violent" mean?
• "Many institutions within the boundaries of North Omaha reinforce these perceptions as they seek to disassociate with the area" - that's biased language, we can't write that unless we are citing someone saying almost exactly that.
• "perpetuating popular misconceptions... racist violence." Again, biased language.
• Sits, is, is - write when they were elected.
• Nelson, Hagel, Heinemen aren't really connected with NO, should we mention them in every Nebraska city article?
• far/near NO - what does that mean? How about a map?
• "The Most Prettiest Mile" - not grammatical. Cite.
• "at one time was regarded for" - rewrite
• mansions? How do mansions square with being a poor area?
• Put quotation marks around quotations. Consider using blockquote.
  WP:CITE
• timeline - need to cite every entry, as this could be a vandalism magnet.
• King, Kennedy visits - are they really that remarkable? Politicians visit lots of places
• Put refs after punctuation.
• Historical racisim - cite every paragraph at a minimum, as this is contentious. This part repeats much of the timeline, so is redundant. I prefer the text, but one should go.
• "As a result, to this day a majority of Omaha's African American population is still found in North Omaha." We can't draw that conclusion, highly POV.
• "Omaha Driving Park Association" - what kind of sport is that?
• Too many sections titled starting with Historical!
• # Mormon Pioneer Cemetery, # Mormon Pioneer Memorial Bridge - need sentences explaining importance
• As with businesses, don't make an exhaustive list of churches and schools.
• Trivia section is highly frowned upon in
  Wikipedia: Featured article
  reviews

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of planet

archive archive 2

I was wondering if this was going to become an issue, and apparently, at long last, it has. The hydrostatic equilibrium section has been flagged as being a bit ORish, a fact which I always slightly suspected but which I allowed myself to ignore given that that this article has gone through two peer reviews and two successful featured article nominations with that section remaining pretty much intact. Of all the sections in this article, this is the one I have had the least hand in, and understand the least. I really don't know if it would be possible to properly cite it, or which sources to use. So. What should I do? Serendipodous 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any good suggestions other than to think about a complete re-write from scratch. It appears to me that the IAU hasn't really decided on the criteria for selecting border-line cases yet. Here's some references that are marginally relevant:

• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..247L — a paper that only a mathematician could love. It has some interesting aspects about the shapes of planets over time.
• http://www.imcce.fr/~hestro/papers/hestroA04.pdf — discusses equilibrium shapes of binary asteroids. Could weak rubble piles meet the criteria for hydrostatic equilibrium?
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Ap&SS.103..379H — discusses hydrostatic equilibrium in the case of asteroids.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. — RJH (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lee

This is an article about the lead singer of the alternative rock band Evanescence. The Evanescence WikiProject hopes to nominate this article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the future.

Main points

Is it easy to understand for non-fans? Does it have chances for being Good or Featured Article? If not, what does the article need to be GA or FA?  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more or less easy to understand.  :) It seems to be formatted per

WP:MOS for help. In some places the grammar is out too - Amy Lee at a concert on 2006 should be in 2006 for one that I saw - there may be more. Reading other GAs should help you in your quest. Good luck - Malkinann 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• (Non-fan reporting for duty.) Yes, it's easy to understand. My main issue with the article is that it doesn't seem to make up its mind whether it's about Amy Lee (the person) or Evanescence (the band). For example: the (very short) "Fallen" section lists the sales figures for that album. This might be interesting for the band's article, but doesn't tell us anything useful about Amy Lee. The same goes for the latter half of the "Founding" section and the first part of "The Open Door". As there already is a good article about Evanescence, you should concentrate on things Amy Lee herself did, said, thought and accomplished, in my opinion. Cheers. --Plek 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

• Comment The lawsuit subsection needs more cites, especially as concerns the counterlawsuit which quotes from somewhere. LuciferMorgan 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you add how critics have reacted towards her guest performance with Korn on their Unplugged CD? LuciferMorgan 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you also add how critics have reacted towards her duet with Shaun Morgan? In this make sure to name the critics or magazines in questioning that you're quoting. LuciferMorgan 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Image" section needs a vast cleanup and needs to cite all its claims. LuciferMorgan 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Silverman

All elements of this article have been updated, expanded, cited, and improved, so the whole article is proposed for review. It may even qualify for Good Article status.--Lexein 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at
  [?]
• Consider adding more
  [?]
• This article has no
  [?]
• See if possible if there is a
  [?]
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  [?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, don't, doesn't, can't.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
  [?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article needs a lot of work. There needs to be a "Development" section describing how the movie was made. There also needs to be a "Reception" section detailing both critical reactions, from notable critics, as well as box office success, home video sales, and any awards or nominations. The "Quotes" section and the "Trivia" section need to go. The "Plot" section needs significant clean up. Needs proper paragraph structure and should not be overly detailed. There should also be a detailed cast section. It appears there is already a massive todo list on the talk page simply to get up to "start class". Good Article status and even B-class are way better than this. Jay32183 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good luck, everyone. Looks like you've got your work cut out for you. Good luck finding any production information. Its reception was thoroughly summed up in the intro. The movie was negatively reviewed as lacking plot, so perhaps the extant plot section should simply be deleted. There are plenty of movie entries which do not satisfy the boilerplate massive todo list --Lexein 05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, now. If I take out the Quotes and Trivia sections, can I put in a lot of WEASEL WORDS, an ORIGINAL RESEARCH just like in the recent Featured Article
  Gremlins 2 - The New Batch? That would be keen. --Lexein 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Dreamgirls (film)

How do users make this article an FA? Are the trivia portions necessary?

]

Cbrown1023 talk

• The article seems great!
  • Lots of refs
  • Covers a lot
  • Fair use rationales for images
    • However, you may be using too many fair use images (
      Wikipedia:Fair use
      ):
      • The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
      • The material must contribute significantly to the article
    • Some of them can stay, but others have to go if you are looking for an
      WP:FA
      .

I am confused about the fair use policy regarding images. I will try to merge the facts from the trivia section into the main article.

Real96 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I incorporated the trivia facts into the article. The trivia fact about Eddie Murphy's films was incorporated into his article. I am confused about the copyrighted work, because the licensing was of the film's screenshot.

Real96 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wiki-newbie

Trivia needs to be merged with appropriate areas of the article to help with context. It can't just lie around as a dead stump of information. There isn't any way you could clean the plot?

]

The plot summary as it stands now glosses over a lot. It couldn't really get much tighter than that. --FuriousFreddy 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Allusions to factual events" is listy and may be interpreted by some as being a trivia section. If you could convert it from being listy to an actual section, cohesive and tied throughout with an intro, middle and end, then this may help. LuciferMorgan 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erikster

• There's a Ratings table hanging out in the Plot summary section. Is the table really notable enough for inclusion?
• "Casting notes" and "Production notes" seem like odd section headings, especially with the latter being under "Production history". Can either of these be renamed?
• Citation for the Los Angeles premiere (seconds sentence in Reception) would be nice.
• Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think there should be references for the Awards subsection. The last three paragraphs in that subsection don't appear fully cited.
• "Related promotions and products" seems oddly placed under Reception, though I don't know where else it could go. I'd suggest re-titling it as "Marketing", maybe.
• The Cast section is placed so deeply in the article. Why not place it, at the very least, before Reception?
• Not everything in "Allusions to factual events" is cited. I don't know if this used to be a trivia section, but I agree with the above sentiment that it seems too listy. Re-writing it in prose would be nice.
• Is it necessary to have such a long main Awards section? I would suggest removing minor awards ("Syracuse Post-Standard"?) and possibly merging the rest of them into the Awards subsection under Reception. Or just make a stand-alone Awards section written in prose. Just my opinion -- the list of awards just seems long to me.
• I strongly recommend applying the Cite news and Cite web templates to the references in this article. With the template, the fully-exposed links will be linked through the title.

• I would also recommend, after applying the templates, that you place {{reflist|2}} under Notes to create two columns for the references.

My apologies if I sound too critical; the article is really quite well-done. I remember visiting it a few months ago before the film came out, and I could tell someone was devoting a lot of time to it. Glad to see that it's remained intact ever since. Definitely is approaching FA status. I'll have to actually read the content (just kind of skimmed this time, pointed out structural things) and get back to you on the writing. From what I noticed, all the references and punctuation was in place, which makes me a very happy editor. Cheers, and good luck continuing to build it up. —

]

Mr. Lady Records

I saved a stub from

]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10

Looks very good overall, and no, getting it an FA isn't a dream. It could use a lot of copyediting however. My suggestions:

• General:
  • Sole years (e.g. 1996) shouldn't be linked per
    10 January 2007
    ).
  • Please use the
    manual of style
    .
  • Add the corresponding infobox of recording labels ({{infobox record label}}) at the top of the article.
  • Reviews should be split out of the lead and the "Background" section to a new "Reception" section.
  • Split information about the band becoming defunct from the "Background" section to a new section with additional information from here.
  • References 5 and 25 needs to go right after the text,
    without
    an external space. References 14, 15, 16, 17, 13 need to go after the punctuation mark.
  • ...now defunct > ...which became defunct in 2004.
  • Be more specific in the "Artists formerly on Mr. Lady" section references, rather than providing the band's website itself. Also, I suggest moving the section to Artists formerly on Mr. Lady and adding that as a "main" article for the "Artists and releases" section in order to avoid the article becoming too listy.
  • This website is down.
  • The two formed Mr. Lady to make women's music and videos accessible and affordable - Duplication of the previous sentence.
• Copyediting related:
  • In March, 2001 - Remove comma.
  • ...by women.". - Remove the second period.
  • ...a record company With - Remove capitalization.
  • ...records (along with - Remove bracket.
  • Kaia Wilson released a statment confirming this in June 1999, stating - Replace "stating" with a colon. "...statment" > "...statement".
  • Formally backing the festival's trans-exclusion policy led to protests and boycotts aimed towards Mr. Lady acts, and Wilson and The Butchies in particular, from groups such as Camp Trans, who disagreed with Mr. Lady's stance and felt that the group and the label exploited transgendered images - Split this to two sentences starting with "Wilson and The Butchies". "...who" > "...have". "...the label" > "...label".

I have further copyediting suggestions, but I strongly advice requesting a different editor with a

]

• The automated suggestions aren't much help (it wants to fix contractions from inside quotes, and that's about it). The copyedits are done, dates are fixed, Quails website removed, It would be great if you could pass over it, Michael, thanks - a couplde of the chnages you suggested I know I've missed. The citation templates are a nightmare to put in, so I have not used them (use is neither reccomended for or against on
  ► 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've given it a proofread. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN

I've gotten pretty good at the {{cite}} templates. While they're neither recommended nor discouraged, they do ensure the cites are done in the proper way. I'm not saying the ones on here are improper, btw! :) But if you'd like, I can do that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, thanks! I can do one or two, but it's trial and error - I can't seem to get my head around them :(

(not Proto ►) 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've gone through the refs and reformatted using the appropriate {{cite}} templates. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really big help, thank you very much.

(not Proto ►) 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Toyota War

I originally thought of creating this article just to alleviate the length of

]

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad at all. Some things that need work, though:

• {{
  Infobox Military Conflict
  }} needs to be added.
  • I added this with basic information I could find in the article. Needs to be filled out. -
    · 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Are there any images available here? At a minimum, some maps would be very useful.
• The lead should, indeed, be longer; two or three paragraphs would probably suffice to provide a stand-alone summary of the article.
• The prose isn't bad, per se, but some copyediting by native speakers would probably be helpful.

Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the images issue up at

Talk:Chadian-Libyan conflict. Commons has nothing of use save the garishly colored Aozou Strip image which I added to that article six days ago. Picaroon 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I'll make a lead that presents a summary of the main events.--Aldux 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written down an expanded lead, and given some context.--Aldux 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon

• I was noticing the same things as Kirill, and have begun acting upon them. Seeing as there is a lack of other images, I've added the Chadian and Libyan flags.
• There are also some things which are probably just differences in sentence structure between Italian and English, mainly the placement of phrases - if you check my recent changes, you'll see I've rearranged some sentences.
• Seeing as I was the one who suggested you split it off in the first place, I guess I'm to blame for this: there are places where not enough context is provided, or too much familiarity is assumed. I've wikilinked several things already and mentioned who Gaddafi was to try to rectify this. Picaroon 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Picaroon. I'm not very coonvinced about the flags; there not specific enough, a map, even general, would be probably better. And yes, I keep forgetting that Chad - ahem (euphemism coming) - is not one of the best known countries in the world. I'll try to add some context.--Aldux 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers

• I added the {{
  Infobox Military Conflict
  }} — needs to be filled out.
• Images would be a blessing. If not, maps would be great.
• Do we have the name of the war/conflict in the languages/POV of Chad and Libya?
• Stub
  Jamahiriya Guard
  ,
• Prose needs tightening in places. -
  · 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've written a pitiful little stub on Djamous, but Google doesn't turn up enough for this Jamahiriya Guard. Picaroon 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps it has another name? -

· 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In this edit, I changed its spelling from "Jamahiriyyah Guard" because that's a less widely used variant of Jamahiriya (Arabic for "mass-state," IIRC). I guess we should leave it to Aldux, seeing as he has access to the book which mentioned it. Picaroon 23:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jamahiriya Guard is mentioned by Metz and Pollack as a sort of pretorian guard, recruited only amongst Gaddafi's tribal clan. I'll try to work on it, maybe it's called often in the west "Repubblican Guard" or "Presidential Guard" (it may have been disbanded; my info regards the 1980s).--Aldux 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the infobox, I can add some other info not contained yet in the article, and will expand Djamous. As for the Libyan or Chadian name of the conflict, I strongly doubt an estabilished name, as Libya has just removed any memory of this war, while Chad is too small to have developed a specific pov on the question.--Aldux 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a small stub on the Jamahiriyyah Guard. It seems that Fran was correct in suspectng an alternative name was more commonly used, and the name tends to be Revolutionary Guard.--Aldux 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, looks like a good stub. -

· 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Pictures / Photographs

Here are some links to photographs — any chance of having a fair use rationale for any of them? -

]

• Libyan Wars, 1980-1989, Part 3
• Libyan Wars, 1980-1989, Part 6
• Strategy Game
• Another one
• Chadian troops reconquer northern Chad (with watermarks — numbers from '2' to '27' at the end) Thumbs

Should be easy to get at least a couple, using {{historicalphoto}}; they're pretty much all non-reproducible. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. I guess its just down to which ones to pick. I'll look around for more and post them here then we can make a choice of the most appropriate. You're right they're non-reproducible, it would be great to find some PD-US-gov, but I think it highly unlikely :( -

· 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd focus on the photographs that actually show combat action; they're likely to be a bit more meaningful that the generic French-plane-flying ones. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Preferably one from each side. -

· 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Something like this one would be good — no watermark and it shows the namesake of the war. -

· 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've never been any good with images - but if some can be used, maybe even the planes may be helpful for the connected

Chadian-Libyan conflict article, it would be great, as it too will probably be passed through a peer review.--Aldux 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(de-indent)

Ok, I added one to the infobox. As fair as fair use (*cough* *spit*) goes, I think we have a fair claim to this one. It would be nice to remove the black border, but I'm not sure if that counts as a derivative work. If anyone wants to find a photo for the Libyan side that would be good. -

]

BanyanTree

Specific points

• What is the CDR? Also, please add that article to the disambiguation page CDR.
• "France answered with a second airstrike" - what was the first airstrike? needs context
• "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - perception of who? international or domestic observers?

General points

• There is a definite need for more background over why this war is happening and what happened in the previous phases. One tightly written paragraph may be enough.
• I've copyedited a bit and added the garish map mentioned by Picaroon above. There are a couple of editors who have created battle maps in the past whom may be willing to create custom maps if you approach them and point out sources.
• Were there any economic or humanitarian effects, e.g. refugees and IDPs?

Otherwise, I think it is quite good. I dislike massive articles greatly and this gives a reasonable amount of detail (though I would like more context and operational-level detail) in a reasonable length. - BanyanTree 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found what the CDR is via a google search for cdr chad libya - it's something called the Democratic Revolutionary Council. I'll add that to the dab page. Picaroon 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank everybody for the fantastic work done; I would never have expected the reviews to arrive so fast, and with so many edits to the article thanks! :-) It's a bit late here, so I'll only briefly awnser.

Regarding the specific points raised by BT,

• Picaroon is correct regarding the CDR; I'll create an article on the miltia commanded by Ahmat Acyl.
• Oops, the first one is the 1986
  Opération coup de poing
  . As this article was originally just a section of a bigger article, what before was obvious is not anymore so.
• "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - shall change to "affected the international perception of Libya as a significant regional military power"

As for the general points

• You're write, I'll try a paragraph lifted from the material in
  Chadian-Libyan conflict
• As for the maps, this French website has some that would be very interesting If I could obtain them [[3]]. On wikipedia there's this meeting between Habré and Miterrand during the Toyota War [4], and maybe this map of Chad could be useful [5], as many of the towns mentioned on the article are there (Aouzou, Faya-Largeau, Fada, the capital, the Libyan base of Maaten as-Sara)
• Regarding humanitarian effects, I know very little, mainly through a few hints given by Nolutshungu. Remember that the war to retake northern Chad took only 3 months, and that northern Chad is all desert (i.e., very few inhabitants).
  • Fair enough, though a sentence describing the environment and terrain (and lack of inhabitants) would be nice for the intro. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you mean by "more operational-level detail"?--Aldux 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By operational level detail, I think he's referring to details of specific skirmishes/battles, ie formations, human losses, etc... I suspect that there won't be much information on these, because it seems unlikely to have written down in detail. Picaroon 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do have some of this sort of info, especially from Pollack, but I didn't want to go too much in detail because I was projecting to write

Battle of Bir Kora, Battle of Ouadi Doum, Battle of Aouzou, Battle of Maaten as-Sarra and reference/expand Battle of Fada.--Aldux 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A brief summary of the course of the war, with links to the battle would be great. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "a brief summary of the war", you mean a summary of the events already present in the article in the lead? As for the links to the battles, sure.--Aldux 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06

No mention, even a short one, of the UN Aouzou Strip Observer Group - should be at least mentioned briefly. Buckshot06 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hudsucker Proxy

This is something of an underrated film even among fans of the Coen brothers. I think that the article is already off to a good start but I would like to improve it even more. Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Count Ringworm 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, you have an easy first step of fair use rationale for images.

I'd move the budget into production--at least the numbers if you think most expensive Cohen film at the time is important then keep that. But, I'd definitely make the intro probably two more fleshed out paragraphs and no hanging sentences like the Wheel of Fortune one. Like how Casablanca (film) does it. gren グレン 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I'll give it a go. Count Ringworm 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

• Lead is way too short. See
  WP:LEAD
  . One good suggestion from there is to include at least part of a sentence about every important section of the article.
• Why so much on the music in the lead? Was it that important in the movie? I recommend moving the music down into a section of its own. Was there a soundtrack released?
• first section, wikilink New Years Eve, Hula hoop, frisbee.
• Norville is chased down the street by an angry mob to the Hudsucker building - what made the mob angry?
• Moses stops the clock and time freezes - huh? Need to explain Moses's mystical powers a bit more. If he has divine powers, why does he have to fight Aloysius - or is Aloysius also more than human? Heck, what are M and A's motivations?
• goes on to "rule with wisdom" - rule what, the company? why the quote marks?
• action."[1]One - need a space after the ref
• Production - wikilink skyscraper, since it's so important
• While trying to sell their feature film debut Blood Simple, - be more specific, give a date
• the scale after Citizen Kane (1941).- in what sense is the scale based on a famous movie?
• it was a box office flop, grossing less than $3,000,000 in the US. - this needs to be moved after the test shootings text, don't you think? In fact, I'd move it all the way to Reaction.
• More reaction - this only describes immediate reaction, what about reaction over the last 15 years? Any more recent films based on it, any more recent reviews, retrospectives, references?
• References - the Retrieved on dates are red links, try again, maybe need leading 0s? Also some refs have double double quotes, as in ""A Rock on the Beach,"
• External links - describe the links more. Coenesque - isn't there a more specific subpage for this film?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-
  house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page
  for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a

GA

at most.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article has a couple of big problems and some smaller ones. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I agree with whoever added the "too long" tag above the plot synopsis. I wonder also about the source of the synopsis. If this is your personal description of the plot, it might be regarded as personal research. It's doubtful that a professional reviewer would describe the plot in this much detail. Please see
  WP:NOR
  .

• You'll have a hard time justifying the use of three fair-use images in this article. I see that one is flagged for deletion, and I doubt that more than one will survive scrutiny. Mr suggestion would be to use only the one in the infobox.

• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article. Please see
  WP:UNLINKDATES
  for the recent changes to the guidelines.

• I'd recommend deleting the word "unexpectedly" from the phrase, "before disappearing unexpectedly from the box-office charts". If you leave it in, it needs a source.

• In the "Release and reception" section, it's not clear what the phrase "wide break" means. Does that mean the movie's rise or its fall in the charts?

• The link to the Vincent Canby review is dead. You might substitute this one in the citation.

• The Maltin citation includes an access date but no url. Should it have an url? If you are citing a book in print, the print version would have no access date.

• Citations 7 and 8 lack urls.

If you have questions about any of these comments, please ask. I'll keep a watch on this peer review page. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Mizuno

This is an article about a fictional character in the

hopes to nominate the article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the near future. Main points: is it easy to understand for non-fans? Does it steer clear of

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

enough? Does the 'profile' section read well? (It's been recently rewritten). Thanks. -Malkinann 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Malkinann did a pretty good with most of those already. :) The only things that remain to be done of those suggestions are the lead (I've been putting some thought into that) and one musical song whose description just needs verification. Actually, I can get rid of that uncertainty just by snipping half a sentence. Okay! --Masamage 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Second half of the article is far too listy. See
  Wikipedia:Embedded list
  .

The "Senshi powers" seems too crufty to me and "Music" seems out of place in a character article.

A poll of 586 votes doesn't seem credible enough to claim that she is "the most popular character in the series". I'm sure plenty of other polls of similar size have had any of the Sailors win.

The article quickly aquires an overly in-universe tone.

The "Profile" section contains too many overly trivial details. Do we really need to know that "Besides reading, Ami loves playing chess and swimming"? Tighten this up.--

SeizureDog 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the perspective on the lists - I didn't realise how listy the article was until you pointed it out. We'll have a think about how to paragraph some of the lists. I'm unsure if we should remove the Senshi powers, as that would take away from the comprehensiveness of the article, but perhaps if we talked more generally about Ami's role in battle as the brains that'd be a solution? The poll seems to have had more than one thousand votes.. but we're looking for a better reference on that. I agree that it does seem in-universe in places... I'm not sure about your familiarity with Sailor Moon, but part of the appeal lies in the varied characters, ie. the dollbox statistics. If we tried to remove any of the statistics details, (swimming, blood type, school club) it'd come back so often it just wouldn't be funny. -Malkinann 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. People are constantly editing those parts. Even when the stats were in a list, folks came and added duplicates of the list. --Masamage 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well do try to do something about it. Right now it feels like an article that goes on and on about what

SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow, that does put it in perspective. I've put up a section stub. Does the profile read better now that Masamage has tried to make it out of universe? -Malkinann 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to Malkinann. Later this afternoon I'll see what I can do about expanding the Senshi section, and possibly providing more context for the statistics. It's true that right now they're like, "Yay the cute shy one likes sandwiches yay!" --Masamage 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Attacks section, I have just finished

rewriting it as prose on a Project test page. Is it better? --Masamage 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, much better. Now it focuses on which attacks are important and not every single tiny one that might be used.--

SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool. I'm seeing what the Project people think about making it official. Thanks for the feedback! :) --Masamage 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we changed the 'Music' section header to say 'Image songs', would that make it less incongruous? Or should it perhaps be prose-ified too, and made to include her poems and things as well? --Masamage 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's not really relevent. Information on image songs would be best served at its own article. e.g.

SeizureDog 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of them are pretty relevant. They appear in anime episodes, or they make statements about the character that aren't made so clearly anywhere else. (In at least one case we're using an image poem as a reference.) Anyway, most of the characters had multiple "single" albums, and there are many dozen larger albums covering at least a hundred SM songs, probably more. I shudder to think of cataloguing them all there are entire, enormous websites devoted to that. My feeling is that if it comes to cruft, this is definitely the least crufty way to handle the music, and if there's a lack of context for why the heck a music section exists, there probably should be more prose. --Masamage 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that's she has image songs is important for the average reader to know. Specificly which songs however, is not.

SeizureDog 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've done as you've suggested, saving the song list in the talk page - maybe if the songs are particularly relevant, they'll make their way back in as references? -Malkinann 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had a go at expanding the lead, as in

WP:LEAD - I'm not sure how sparklingly it reads, though. -Malkinann 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What next?

What should we do now? Have we achieved GA quality or no? How can we accomplish that if not? --Masamage 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've expanded the section on Ami's "Sailor Mercury" role + lead and significantly expanded the section on her "Dark Sailor Mercury" role. Maybe the FU rationale for DSM needs work? If the peer review doesn't seem like we'll get any more comments, we can always request that it gets archived - although it seems that a FAC is an automatic out of the peer review system.. ;) -Malkinann 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the FU rationale for DSM's image, which brings them all up-to-date except for the picture of Chisaki Hama in civilian clothes. I have no idea where that one comes from. Unless it's on the Oracle? I'll check that when I get home tonight. Anyway, I'm going to try and figure out if it's kosher to ask the main WP Anime talk page to come look over here. If it is, I'll try that and we can get some more insight before moving on. --Masamage 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - I'd thought eternal-moon.org, but it doesn't seem to be there. Maybe we should swap it to one of her with glasses (cos we talk about her glasses a lot)??? -Malkinann 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it at the Oracle, but it seems to be just a modelling shot for Chisaka Hama, not a screenshot from the show. But here's a pretty good shot of Ami in glasses. --Masamage 21:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 37

See Wikipedia:Peer review/California State Route 37/archive2 for previous Peer Review.

This is the second request for Peer Review. After the previous one said the article had no problems and was ready for FA, the FAC failed miserably. Now that most of the problems issued there have been resolved, I would like to know if there are any problems with the article that would prevent this from reaching FA status. --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per
  [?]
• Per
  [?]
• Per
  [?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
  [?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Raiders

This was recently passed as a Good Article, and I feel it merits consideration as a Featured Article. I would like to get some more eyes on it before submitting a nomination. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked over it briefly, but I believe it will easily pass FA. --Ideogram 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Ideogram. I don't have any improvements to suggest. YechielMan 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real nice work, could use a couple more pics to describe the action, but Fair Use photos like that are very hard to find.

Quadzilla99 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah I searched all over the place, but couldn't find anything unfortunately. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence

This is an article about alternative rock band Evanescence. The Evanescence WikiProject hopes to nominate this article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the future.

Main points

Is it easy to understand for non-fans? Is it possible for this article to be a GA or FA? If not, what does the article need to improve and get to GA or FA? Wich sections need more attetion?  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram

I found this article generally informative and well written. It could always be better, of course, and I have tagged a couple of awkward sentences near the beginning.

I think it has a good chance to pass GA, if you can fix those citation needed tags.

For FA, I personally think the prose is not good enough, but then my standards here are higher than most reviewers.

I'm not really sure you should stick all those subcategories under "History". It seems to me you really want to structure the article around the album releases, with a separate section for the Christian controversy. --Ideogram 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Christian controversy: It's placed there because it's a recurring problem since the Evanecence early history until today.  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's placed last in the History section, implying that it happend at a particular point in history, namely last. --Ideogram 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

is there a better picture that we can use for the Evanescence article? one where you can clearly see them closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacanescence (talk • contribs) 04:49, February 18, 2007(UTC)

This is a review, not a page of requests. You should check that on the archives of the Evanescence last page (I think it's the last archive).  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youngstown, Ohio

I wanted to peer review this article again. Since February (the last peer review), many changes have been made and I am contemplating nominating this article for FA status again. Please provide your thoughts on the overall structure, what it is missing and what I can do to get to FA. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

• Embarrassingly trivial, but I'd recommend cutting "as noted above" from the first para of History. I know it's already covered in the lead, but that's in the nature of the beast, and the phrase doesn't really add any meaning.
• In the second para of 'History', I'm a little unclear on where the majority of the first settlers of the township came from. It says "While some of the area's early settlers were natives of Connecticut, Youngstown differed from most settlements of the Western Reserve, which drew a vast majority of their residents from New England. Youngstown attracted a significant number of Scots-Irish settlers from neighboring Pennsylvania as well". To me that says that the majority of the settlers were not from Connecticut or from New England and while there were 'significant numbers' of Scots-Irish, it seems these were not the majority either. What am I missing?
• In the third para of 'History', am I right in thinking that the county seat of Trumbull County moved from Warren to Canfield to Youngstown? If so, is it necessary to mention that it was at Warren first? This doesn't really have anything to do with Youngstown and could be confusing.
• I find the phrase "the discovery of coal in the community" confusing. I know what is meant by it ("the community discovered coal under their land"), but something about it reads wrong and sounds like they perhaps found it in the lumber room, or under the kitchen table. :) Perhaps "the discovery of coal by the community"?
• Being really picky, the final sentence of 'History' (i.e. just before 'Peopling of the valley') says that the railroad came to the city in 1856. A couple of paras earlier it says that the village of Youngstown didn't become a city until 1867 - could this be reworded so as not to cause confusion?
• I can't remember what the MoS says on the subject, but some style guides recommend that if there are sub-headings to a section all the text in the section should appear under a subheading. At present half the text of 'History' is under a sub-heading ('Peopling of the Valley'), while the other half comes directly under the main section heading. Suggest that the first bit could be called 'Origins' or 'Foundation'.
• No reference for the statement that "ethnic diversity came to be regarded as one of Youngstown's defining characteristics"
• Is the closure of Youngstown Sheet and Tube really a Swan song? I understand that term to mean some kind of final, magnificent performance before death. This seems just to have been the 'death', with no final performance. Suggest the term is removed.
• Perhaps link Downtown at its first occurrence, or even explain its meaning. That wouldn't be necessary for US readers of course, but those of us across the pond aren't that familiar with what it actually means.
• "has tended to overshadow that the city has a long entrepreneurial tradition" (At the start of 'Legacy of innovation') should be "has tended to overshadow the city's long entrepreneurial tradition".
• Should the various organisations described in 'Legacy of innovation' be described in chronological order?
• The second para of 'Legacy of innovation' seems to be more about 'Youngstown in popular culture'. I agree that the Springsteen song needs to be mentioned, but I'm not sure this is the place to do it.
• Suggest replace "The school district is currently engaged in..." with "As of 2007? the school district was engaged in....". Similar for "This roster is expected to change in the next few years..."
• Picky again, but under 'Theater', the word 'Interestingly' is not needed (comment also applies elsewhere) In the same paragraph, why say 'Meanwhile' when describing the Stambaugh auditorium? And again for the Oakland center for the Arts? In fact, I note quite a few appearances of meanwhile - probably a good idea to check whether meanwhile is really what is meant in each case.
• The para on the Grandes Venues project should be cut down significantly, now that the project has failed.
• The second para under 'Museums' contains an external jump link, which probably shouldn't be there.
• "The downtown area boasted no less than two department stores" (under 'Former attractions') sounds odd and somewhat
  peacock-y
  . There are only two numbers less than two you can have! Suggest "There were formerly two department stores in the downtown area".
• Movie theaters in the downtown area are mentioned at least twice: in 'Former attractions' and 'Theater' (I've a feeling it may be more than that, actually). It's not that notable, it need only be mentioned once. Similarly, the Chevrolet center appears twice - again, once only needed.
• Section title 'Challenging old verities': Suggest use 'truths' instead, clearer for many readers.
• Suggest that there is probably a more encyclopedic term than 'gangland slayings', although I'll admit I don't know what it is off the top of my head!
• Overall a clear and certainly comprehensive article. It does feel like the balance of the piece isn't quite there yet, though: I'd like to see more on the history and development of the city, and perhaps less on the current buildings and amenities, which may not all be notable. Anyway - hope that's helpful 4u1e 12:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only major ting I noticed is that the geography and media sections don't have references. I personally don't think they're necessary in the geography section, and not too necessary in media, but I'm sure the people at FAC would disagree, so I'll point it out. Wizardman 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Mindell

I would like a peer review of the claims made in Earl_Mindell#Controversy. Thanks! SERSeanCrane 04:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I'm only concerned with this material:

Mindell's theories on health and nutrition have been met with criticism in the scientific community. For example, Mindell claims that eating foods that are high in

somatic cells in such a form that would directly benefit the consumer. Similarly, Mindelll has previously promoted oral supplements of an "anti-aging" enzyme, superoxide dismutase

(SOD). There is currently no evidence for the supposed benefits of SOD, and it is known that the enzyme would not survive the digestive process if taken orally.

The associated reference is:

Schwarcz, Joe (2006-08-19). "Beware of Juices That Claim to Cure". The Montreal Gazette: J11.

SERSeanCrane 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my line, but I suggest the words "In truth, .." be replaced by something like "Scientific consensus suggests that ..". I think you also want sources for both Mindell's claim and the scientific consensus. --Bduke 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'm all for peer reviewing of scientific articles, I'm not sure we can peer review a dynamic source like WP. I'm not even sure how that would work. I've just had an article accepted that's been in peer review for three months (and those reviews were good ones!). Wikipedia is self-correcting and if there's a problem with the statement you have suggested for review, somebody who knows better will come along and edit it. Basically, Wikipedia, by being open access, will peer review itself. Secondly, Joe Schwarcz (McGill University) is a pretty respectable source, he's not some hack. Famousdog 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a knock on Schwarczy, I paraphrased the sections of his article that I used for the Earl Mindell entry and just wanted confirmation that it is "legit."

All the best, SERSeanCrane 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper St. Clair High School

What the Article Needs?What would be need for this article to become GA or even FA?

• Please see
  Bates Method
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Pennsylvania State University

  Well, I went to Penn State, but I'd one topic that I think should be addressed (perhaps near the Demographics and Trends sections) is the alleged racial discrimination that some students feel at Penn State. The "Village" incident in April-May of 2001 was a very big story at Penn State, which was a week long sit-in at the HUB due to death threats against black students. [6] Discrimination (racial or non-racial) is still a big issue to many students at Penn State today, as just yesterday week the Black Caucus participated in a sit-in regarding the former women's basketball player Jen Harris [7]. To keep that section balanced, perhaps a mention or two of what Penn State is doing to help minority students.

  WP:PRESTIGE. The two biggest issues I can think of when it comes to criticism of PSU are alleged discrimination issues and high tuition bills. Arthurberkhardt 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two new sections added, discussing controversy and criticism regarding diversity and tuition at Penn State. Thanks for the feedback... keep it coming! PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oklahoma City bombing