WikiPedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Purge server cache (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review&action=purge)

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

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

The path to a Featured Article
  1. Start a new article
  2. Research and write a great article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback (Peer review)
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. Featured articles
[edit]

Instructions

[edit]

How to make a request

  • Anyone can request peer review here. When posting your request, include a brief description of the kind of comments/contributions you want, and sections of the article you think need to be reviewed. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to the comments you do get.
  • Procedure for adding nominations:
  1. Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page (not the article itself) to let other editors of the article know that the article is being peer reviewed.
  2. From there, click on the link that appears in the new "peer review" box. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Peer review/name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page.
[edit]

How to respond to a request

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

How to remove a request

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

How to resubmit a request

  • Procedure for requesting a brand new peer review request:
  1. Move the peer review page to Wikipedia:Peer review/example/Archive1
  2. Edit the page Wikipedia:Peer review/example, remove the redirect.
  3. Resubmit the request and make a note where the old request is via a wikilink.
[edit]

Archive links

Contents
1 Instructions

1.1 How to make a request
1.2 How to respond to a request
1.3 How to remove a request
1.4 How to resubmit a request
1.5 Archive links

2 Requests

2.1 Ginny Weasley
2.2 Porgy and Bess
2.3 Carl Friedrich Gauss
2.4 Starcraft
2.5 Strepsirrhini
2.6 Primate
2.7 Italian Renaissance
2.8 Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848)
2.9 Radhanite
2.10 List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago
2.11 Knots Landing
2.12 No More Drama
2.13 Originalism
2.14 Puerto Rico
2.15 Adalgisa Nery
2.16 List of rivers by length
2.17 Nonhuman animals ethics
2.18 Patrick Arguello
2.19 List of Star Trek: TNG episodes
2.20 10th millennium BC
2.21 Gustav Mahler
2.22 Psychoanalytic theory

2.22.1 Suggestions for the peer-review

2.23 James Jesus Angleton
2.24 Science & Environmental Policy Project
2.25 Southern literature
2.26 History of the automobile
2.27 Iron Cross
2.28 Day Tripper
2.29 Norman Borlaug
2.30 Algerian Civil War
2.31 Spamalot
2.32 Colonel Light Gardens, South Australia
2.33 Imageboard
2.34 Elias Ashmole
2.35 Phishing
2.36 Eamon de Valera
2.37 Auburn, Alabama
2.38 History of Poland (1945-1989)
2.39 Conservative Party (UK)
2.40 Education in the United States
2.41 Inspector Gadget
2.42 Virtuti Militari
2.43 Weasel program
2.44 Darth Vader
2.45 Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968
2.46 Karakuwa, Miyagi
2.47 Battle of Trafalgar
2.48 Sesame Street
2.49 Khazars
2.50 El Angel
2.51 Marvin Gaye
2.52 IFK Göteborg
2.53 Rum
2.54 Race and intelligence
2.55 MCMXC a.D.
2.56 Dartmouth College
2.57 History of Central Asia
2.58 Hubble Space Telescope
2.59 Hassan Evan Naseem
2.60 Awards and decorations of Belarus
2.61 Six sigma
2.62 Canadian postal code
2.63 Edwards Air Force Base
2.64 Vlad III Dracula
2.65 European Space Agency
2.66 Burkhard Heim
2.67 Pikmin
2.68 Boston, Massachusetts
2.69 Sergei Korolev
2.70 Paul of Tarsus
2.71 Operation Tennessee Waltz
2.72 University of Wales, Lampeter
2.73 Soap opera
2.74 List of movies with TV shows and other movies in them
2.75 In-N-Out
2.76 Caulfield Grammar School
2.77 Terrorism in Kashmir
2.78 SS Andrea Doria
2.79 Obesity
2.80 Hard Times

3 Archives


[edit]

Requests

[edit]

Ginny Weasley

I think this has enough content to become a Featured Article at some point, although there may still be some work to be done. Any input is much appreciated. This is part of WikiProject Harry Potter --drak2 10:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Porgy and Bess

This article is very good, but needs a bit more information on the actual music. Other than that, what else could use fixing? --Alexs letterbox 06:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Carl Friedrich Gauss

Long, well written interesting article with ample references. I feel that this should definitely be a FA candidate. But are there any improvements you think are necessary? Borisblue 03:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Starcraft

Aside from the need for more pictures, any idea how to improve this article? Borisblue 03:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Strepsirrhini

Looking for general comments. I've been working on various primate articles for awhile now, so I though I'd actively seek soe peer review. - UtherSRG 02:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Primate

Looking for general comments. I've been working on various primate articles for awhile now, so I though I'd actively seek soe peer review. - UtherSRG 02:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Italian Renaissance

This page is partially the work of the week Renaissance was the COTW. I have recently been working on the history sections and Antandrus just did some great work on the music section. I now feel this page is quite good coverage of an important subject and I am wondering what is needed to get it up to featured status. This is a massive topic and the page is up to 35kb while many section are somewhat lacking in detail, especially in the culture section. There are, however, quite a few sub-articles that give more in-depth coverage of these areas. It would be great if someone who knows their art history could look through the later half and search for any glaring omissions. - SimonP 00:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Right now, I can say I'd like some external links and a picture in the lead (even if it's just one moved up). Still reading through it, but I was expecting a citicisms section. The first sentence says it was a period of great change, but I'm sure I've heard Zinn-ite historians saying something like the peasant experienced no real change at all. Perhaps this could just be in some kind of subsection about the overall effects on society. Just thoughts, and I'll read it now. --Dmcdevit 01:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The main Renaissance page has a fairly extensive historiography section, much of which is devoted to criticisms. I shall try to add a summary on this page. Links are also good idea, but I'm not sure about a picture in the lead. Templates and images tend not to mix. - SimonP 02:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • How about an image in the template like {{Crusade}}? {{History of Spain}} is set up to take differnt images on different pages which is neat--nixie 04:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That is a good idea. I have added a small image to the template. - SimonP 12:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848)

This is an article I put together a while back on a relatively obscure manuscript. I realize that it is shorter than most FAs, but there isn't a great deal of information available beyond what is here, and there really isn't much more that could be said. I think, that at least as far as amount of content, this article is as good as it can be. The organization and presentation, of course, can always be improved. Comments? Dsmdgold 20:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Radhanite

I initiated this article and several other users helped with the editing. I think it's a decent article with about as much information as is available on the topic. It could use some work with formatting, style etc. Suggestions would be appreciated. --Briangotts 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago

I would like input on this list. Specifically, I think it has the potential to make it as a Featured List eventually, and I would like input on how to get it there. Thanks. Guettarda 15:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hrm. I don't like the split links, like Boa constrictor. Make the links as specific as possible (Boa constrictor). If you want to indicate a subspecies that doesn't have an article but the full species does, disambiguate it with a pipe (Boa constrictor constrictor), or use ssp to make the break (Boa constrictor ssp. constrictor). - UtherSRG 16:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, done. Guettarda 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It definitely would benefit from a longer lead. --Dmcdevit 18:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Knots Landing

This article discusses all things Knots Landing as far as what happened on-screen goes, and as much as I could find about the behind the scenes wheelings and dealings on the internet. What else should be added or improved upon?

Juppiter 03:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. A jnumber of the sections, particularly those describing the seasons, need some paragraph breaks. These give the reader's eyes a chance to rest, and makes reading less tedious. Are there any published works that could be listed as references? Is there an IMDB link and an official home page? Have the episodes been released on DVD? — RJH 18:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

No More Drama

Nothing so important as Psychoanalytic theory, but I'd be greatly appreciative of any thoughts and opinions about the text, content, etc. on this page as it's one of the more involved articles I've written. Volatile 23:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Originalism

This article on the judicial philosophy of Originalism has been expanding along with my understanding of originalism, but some outside input would be helpful.Simon Dodd 22:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems like the article could do with some more historical context, especially the development of originalism as a response to the development of more liberal methods of interpretation, specifically the idea of the living constitution. This is probably the most important context for the topic in today's discourse so it could use a deeper look. One way to address this would be to expand the "differentiated from strict constructionism" (which in any event seems to have an odd priority of place, before the different varieties of originalism are discussed) to also include comparisons to the other major forms of interpretation. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:32, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
[edit]

Puerto Rico

I believe the article is a good example of wikipedia contributions. The controversial issues have been resolved and the recent changes have been minor edits. I would like people to check the flow of the article, as well as politics and history sections, specially paying attention to NPOV. I hope that following peer review the article can be nominated for featured article status. Cjrs 79 14:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a good start, but there are major issues that must be dealt with if you want to move this towards an FAC.
    • The History section is far too long, given that there is a subpage. The social and economic effects of the postwar changes should get some mention. The Demographics section is also too long.
    • Geography, Geology and Economy are too short. The lack of a Culture section (beyond a list of links, many of which are dubiously "cultural") is a major problem, especially in the absence of a Culture subpage.
    • There are far too few references, and there is no way of tying them to the information on the page.

Guettarda 15:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the references needing to be bulked up significantly. Having checked the references, the history section appears to be basically unsupported by the listed references. The Municipalities section should also be looked at, it is little more than a list that is replicated by a template further down. There is no need for the list and the template together. --Allen3 talk 15:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Adalgisa Nery

This mid-20th century Brazilian poet and politician is little-known even in Brazil, but she intrigues me. When I was doing graduate work in Latin American Studies, my focus was the public and private roles of female relatives of the Brazilian political elite from 1930 to 1964. Adalgisa Nery was one of the few female relatives of an elite Brazilian politician of her generation to be elected to political office in her own right. Also, her combination of a literary and political career fascinates me. However, I wonder whether Nery is too obscure to have a Wikipedia entry that is longer than a stub, especially considering that both of her husbands (the artist Ismael Nery and the politician Lourival Fontes) do not yet have Wikipedia entries of their own (apparently not even in the Portuguese Wikipédia).

Diamantina 04:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • If there's enough information on her to make her longer than a stub, by all means do it. Her writing and political work make her notable enough for a feature article. If you're looking at getting this to that quality, I have three suggestions: 1) get a picture, 2) expand the article (perhaps including how her writings were relevant/influential, specific actions in politics, etc.) and also consider 3) writing quick stubs for the red-links, which are a little distracting. Best wishes. --Scimitar 15:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Scimitar. I've found a link to a reproduction of Diego Rivera's portrait of Adalgisa Nery (http://www.masterpiece-paintings-gallery.com/rivera-portrait-adalgisa.htm), but it seems to be under copyright and thus not available for Wikipedia. Another page has a couple of Ismael Nery's portraits of Adalgisa (http://www.evandrocarneiroleiloes.com/materia/view/3431?artistId=272).

Here are JPEGs of various portraits of Adalgisa Nery: paintings by Ismael Nery (http://www.evandrocarneiroleiloes.com/materia/resources/images/home/04012005/ismael.jpg) and Diego Rivera (http://www.masterpiece-paintings-gallery.com/images/rivera-images/rivera-portrait-adalgisa-nery-lg.jpg) and a circa 1940s photo (http://www.psbnacional.org.br/images/ft_Adalgisa2.jpg). Which do you think would be most suitable for the article?

Relevance/influence of Nery's writings? Specific actions in politics? OK. Let me do more research and get back to you on that. Might take me a few weeks, however. The Callado biography (my main source for the Nery article) does not delve much into literary criticism, and even less about Nery's specific actions in politics. (Callado does mention that Nery felt more comfortable in legislative committees than speaking on the legislature floor, and describes Nery's disdain for the coup of 1964 as evidenced in her newspaper column.) Callado's intention seems to have been a brief (less than 150 pp.) biographical portrait that would rescue an unjustly neglected figure from obscurity, etc. (Ana Arruda Callado, the widow of novelist Antonio Callado — oops, he's a red-link too! — might have also perceived biographical parallels between her and Nery.)

And many many thanks for writing the Ismael Nery stub, Scimitar. I have the Dicionário Histórico-Biográfico Brasileiro pós-1930 (excellent reference on Brazilian politicians) and should be able to whip up a 2-4 paragraph Lourival Fontes stub in the next few days, God willing.

Diamantina 10:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm glad I could help, though the stub would have been easier to write if I wasn't limited to English sources:). I think the phot is probably best for the article, if there aren't any copyright issues (I'm afraid that isn't my area of expertise). Also, since Ismael died in '34, his paintings should all be available for use, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to include one or two of them. (Possibly even in his stub?)

Anyways, anything else that you think is relevent from the Callado biography could be added as well. Best wishes. --Scimitar 15:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

List of rivers by length

I think this is one of the more important lists on Wikipedia, and should be featured. I only made minor edits to the list, but comments would be appreciated. Phoenix2 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the sort of list we would like at WP:FLC. However, it has some issues:
  • Why is there a table and a numbered list, both of which broadly duplicate each other? Can't they be integrated?
  • Since actual lengths are disputed, it does not help very much to list "some lengths found in sources" - much better would be to state which reference cites which length.
  • The format of the table is not brilliant - it could do with a "number" column on the left, it would look better as a {{prettytable}}, and some colours (for example, a different one for each continent) would be a good idea - see the recently featured lists in WP:FL for some ideas.
Good work so far, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I'll try to get {{prettytable}} in there, add some colour, and check the already featured lists. Phoenix2 22:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Amazon and Yangtze have superscripted numbers, but I don't see any footnotes. If you add them, could you use {{ref}} and {{note}}? — mark ✎ 08:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll add footnotes for those rivers. Phoenix2 17:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Nonhuman animals ethics

This I think is borderline nonsense. It is I think an explanation of altruism in organisms, and it does go into reciprocity and kin selection okay. But it misses the immense level of competition there is between organisms; nature is red in tooth and claw. I also think it commits the naturalistic fallacy when implying that because something happens in nature, it is therefore right and/or is some personal speculation on whether animals have ethics. I'm good on the biology, but not so good on the ethics. Oh and its images are probably copyvios. Dunc|☺ 00:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but that is not what peer review is for. For that kind of thing, please list it on cleanup. Peer review is for getting advice from others on what you can implement in the article, perhaps also with some help from people making the suggestions. - Taxman Talk</sup> 02:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Well what is it for then? I want other people to look at this article, preferably ones with backgrounds in ethics and comment on it in order to improve it. This is not WP:FAC. Dunc|☺ 11:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At the top of this page it reads "This page is for nearly Featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured article candidates." Please try Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Thanks. :) — RJH 15:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Patrick Arguello

I would appreciate anybody who could take the time to offer their input on this article, whether for vain flattery, or simply because he's an interesting character that deserves not to be forgotten by history. Sherurcij 07:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • The lead section is too small and doesn't adequately summarize the article. The "credit" section should be called "References" with the book reference (I assume) formatted properly - is that the only one? (Wikipedia:Cite your sources). Can you find some external links for further reading? - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

List of Star Trek: TNG episodes

Please note that the criteria for a featured list is WP:FL and not WP:FA.

This is probably the best example of an episode list on WP. The page only requires one more image to be complete, otherwise there's 175 images (one per episode) for 176 episode overviews. Cburnett 15:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have long admired the formatting of this list, and feel that every other list of TV episodes should follow it. My only problem is that the rainbow TOC box is kind of ugly and not very useful. - SimonP 15:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Rainbow box is pretty, but not very useful. Other then that, impressive. I would love to hear FAC objections to it other then 'it's a list' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Enlarge
I know it's a subtle point, but each color corresponds to the color on the DVD box (season 1 = red; season 2 = orange; yada yada). I guess maybe a semi-die-hard trekkie, like me, would catch that. :) I suppose to most, it would look like a promotion of LGBT with the irony that there are no gay characters in Star Trek. heh Cburnett 03:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Also, one objection I could forsee is the fact that there are a fair amount of red links since most episodes do not have their own article yet. I myself have mixed feelings on the impact this should have: I wouldn't want to say this is the best WP can do by having dozens upon dozens of red links but at the same time it's not the episodes themselves up for FL... Cburnett 03:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a little more description of the series in the lead similar to Star Trek: The Next Generation just to give the reader a bit more context. --nixie 02:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions? I wouldn't want to duplicate what's found on Star Trek: The Next Generation and am not really sure what to say about ST:TNG that's not in its respective article. Cburnett 03:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Not knowing much about Star Trek, it's hard to say, perhaps something like the amazon review mentioning a the themes, key actors, important episodes, production values that makes this series different from the others, up to about 3 paragraphs--nixie 10:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful, but what about writers/directors? Juppiter 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Within the table I assume? That might make it a bit crowded. Perhaps a separate table since I'm assuming they're generally the same through out the series or seasons. Cburnett 23:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

10th millennium BC

Peer review request added by MPF on basis that a large number of additions by User:65.82.31.49 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.82.31.49) are very improbable (the four worst examples removed and listed at Talk:10th millennium BC) - MPF 15:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could definetly use references. Lead and overview section would be nice as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Gustav Mahler

Did this in a day's work using a couple of references. This is my first major overhaul of a WP article, so I'd like to get some feedback and see how I did; I tried to follow the guidelines for a good article as much as I could. Comments and thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks! TheProject 05:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, overall. If anything he made is online (it should be public domain since he died in 1911), adding it as samples to external links would be good. Try incorporating material from see also (Category:Compositions by Gustav Mahler) into main article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't find any sheet music at the sheet music archive (http://www.sheetmusicarchive.net/). I'm not familiar with where to find OGG files of music, either -- can someone give me some pointers? I notice there are generally only OGGs of well-known works. Are the OGG files found on composer/works pages made by WP users, or released by independent artists, or what? Assistance is gratefully appreciated. (It is my understanding that MP3s are a copyvio, is this correct?) TheProject 22:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is possible to make .ogg files from digital recordings, as long as they are less than 30 seconds in length they can be used in Wikipedia under the provision of fair use. They're not absolutley necessary but they do enhance an article. Otherwise the article looks very good.--nixie 02:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it is very good. If at all possible, a further exploration of his legacy would be helpful. Your section on "Works" is particularly good. 06:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Psychoanalytic theory

It'll take more than a clean-up tag to move this ball forward. This is more or less a complete re-write, rather than a touch-up, so I'm asking for broad feedback on further improvements. Buffyg 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Missed the requirement to add article to peer review list. Submitting in accordance with rules. Buffyg 14:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Suggestions for the peer-review

The article should not require a paragraph to describe what it is about; instead, its scope should simply be theories to do with psychoanalysis. It should include subsections on the question of whether (and how) psychoanalysis can be studied objectively, whether it is disproveable in whole or part (and whether this matters), the informal "theory" of the manners in which analysis can be conducted (e.g. bare room unlike Freud; methods of interpretation), and the relationships with behavioural, cognitive, and psychiatric (and perhaps even literary) theories. It would be interesting to have an explanation (theory) of why psychoanalysis has resisted decline so much more successfully in France than in anglophone countries. Rather than complicated sentences with complicated words, we should be treated to simple descriptions of the differences between Freudian, Jungian, and Adlerian thinking. Possibly in lists if that helps to simplify the sentences.

The article does not require a paragraph to describe what it is about; it takes the opening paragraph to delineate its subject matter. I think the word objective is used above in an impoverished sense. One question that arises in psychoanalytic theory is what exactly one is saying when one claims that psychoanalysis is a science. If one is talking about eidectic proof, one is definitely not in the realm of falsifiability in Popper's sense.
We certainly need to talk more about the subject matter in some detail (the current article is mostly a sketch), but a comparison of Freud, Jung, and Adler can be made by reading those entries. Hypothesising on the relative strength of psychoanalysis in the French vs. anglophone contexts would be going rather far into the field of original research, which is what wikipedia is supposed not to be. Writing the article as a series of lists for the benefit of simpification is almost certainly doing so for the benefit of oversimplification. Buffyg 23:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful reply. I think we need to aim for readability by a wide audience, and this requires we use more common usages than "eidetic proof", which I for one don't understand. I agree that lists usually impose a simplistic way of thinking, but that to me is better than <<<"Major thinkers within psychoanalytic theory include Nicholas Abraham, Serge Leclaire, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Slavoj Zizek, Jacques Derrida, René Major, Luce Irigaray, and Jacques-Alain Miller; their work is anything but unitary — Derrida, for example, has remarked that virtually the entirety of Freud's metapsychology, while possessing some strategic value previously necessary to the elaboration of psychoanalysis, ought to be discarded at this point, whereas Miller is sometimes taken as heir apparent to Lacan because of his editorship of Lacan's seminars, his interest in analysis is even more philosophical than clinical, whereas Major has questioned the complicity of clinical psychoanalysis with various forms of totalitarian government.">>>
Thank you for accepting the possibility of extending the article's scope; we should probably start with a reworking of the first sentence, which seems to me to (a) define the article in terms of what it excludes, and (b) include a redundant clause.
I agree that links to Freud, Jung etc are important but this article could be a good place for comparing and contrasting them. The psychoanalysis article includes some good text on theory, and we should avoid duplication. This may require discussion with the authors of that (excellent) article.
[edit]

James Jesus Angleton

Article was revised in late May. Its subject matter is difficult, as Angleton was a member of the CIA, which means that authoritative source materials are not easy to come by. Buffyg 14:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Needs a picture. Also, it seems short for FA consideration, and if you flesh it out you might want to divide the biography into sections. Best Wishes- --Scimitar 14:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nothing's been said about putting this article forward for FA candidacy. I tend to think that some basic issues about sources need to weighed first. Buffyg 14:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Science & Environmental Policy Project

If you look at the article on SEPP (which I just attempted to neutralize), you'll see that the critics of the organization's views cite the Wikipedia articles Attribution of recent climate change and Satellite temperature measurements. Indeed, these articles flatly contradict SEPP's view of what the facts are on these issues. The former does so without acknowledging or describing the dissenting view; the latter one discusses disagreement, but says that has been resolved in favor of SEPP's opponents. I'm not in a position to dispute the scientific findings in the detail articles, but SEPP would not seem to agree with them. Do any of these articles have NPOV problems? -- Beland 03:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Southern literature

I have done a lot of research and rewriting to attempt to bring this article up to featured article standards. Unfortunately, I have become so involved in the article that I am no longer able to see if it is missing any pertinent information or makes any logical leaps. Constructive criticism is welcome. --Alabamaboy 23:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Isn't "Southern literature" a bit US-centric? would Literature of the Southern Unted Sataes be better? Dunc|☺ 01:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem would be that no one--from lay people to academics--refer to southern literature by this term. When I typed the phrase into Google, only two links came up, whereas Southern Literature brings up 75,000 plus. I'd be hesitant to try instituting a name change to a term that is in common use. That would be like changing African-American literature to African United States Literature.
Thanks for the info on the image. I'll see what I can do to get a better one.
[edit]

History of the automobile

This article was a COTW nominee and an editor took the initiative to expand the article, thus disqualifying it from COTW. I believe this could be a featured article, therefore I'm nominating it for Peer Review. —ℬastique▼talk 16:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is great work, but it still needs some changes to be a FA candidate. It needs references and a longer lead, the lead should also lose the list and table. In terms of content the main problem is that it focuses too much on the cars themselves. There is very little on the automobile's effect on society. - SimonP 15:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Lead for what lead should be: expand and move the list and table template somwhere into mainbody. Expand short sections and rewrite so they have fewer bullets ('Vintage era' and 'Pre-War era' are definetly stub-sections, although as they have subarticle try expanding from it). References are a must. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Iron Cross

Yes, the Nazi connections make this a vandal-magnet, but I think the article is actually in pretty good shape. Other than references (a perennial bugbear), what is missing? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Lead is too short. Perhaps a mention of some famous receipents would be useful. On a sidenote it seems we have quite a few of medals on our current FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Day Tripper

I'm interested in seeing well done articles on individual songs by The Beatles and here's one that I've contributed. Naturally, help in improving the quality of currently submitted articles, in particular, this one, would be much appreciated.

Request submitted by The Naturals at 01:43, Jun 17, 2005.
Article could use a bunch more cross-links. People born after the 80s might not know what a "hippie" is, for example. Other terms that could be linked: LSD, ferryboat, guitar, lyric, London, prick teaser, twelve-bar in E, &c. Thanks. — RJH 15:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Norman Borlaug

This man saved a billion lives. Thusly, I've added a great deal to the article and want to make sure everything is in order for it to move on to WP:FAC. Please leave me a comment! --brian0918™ 04:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The article has improved heaps, but its still pretty sketchy, the article should be roughly the same size as Linus Pauling covering the topics in more depth, for example the regognition section is way too short, read his CV he has honorary doctorates and awards from most of the world (not suggesting they should all be listed, but the recognition he has recieved is rather underplayed). How Bourlags research is related to the dwarf rices should be expanded upon, advocacy for biotechnology, the Sasakawa project, why he recieved the nobel peace prize should be expanded upon too. Should there be a list of publications? Then there's all the normal things that come up in peer review, the lead should be longer summarisng the articles contents, use of {{Infobox Biography}}, using a inline reference system so the article is verifiable... I've had Bourlaud on my to do list for a while so I'll be happy to help get this up to featured status.--nixie 04:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The parts directly cut and pasted from the Nobel Biography will have to be cleaned up too.--nixie 05:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please help out with this article. My steps yesterday were simply to add content to the article. The content still needs to be cleaned up and expanded upon in the necessary areas. There's also some confusion as to when the CIMMYT started, please add a date if you can find out for sure. --brian0918™ 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see approximate dates of capture for the photographs, or perhaps for all but the initial photo. I've done the same at Ray Davis (soldier). Ground 16:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The first sentence is a little clunky, what with trying to say he was the father of modern ag and the father of the green revolution. I'd start with saying that he is the father of the green revolution (which almost no one disputes), in addition to pioneering many modern agricultural techniques. In addition, you might want to mention this fact about Norman Borlaug: "Borlaug failed his initial university entrance exam and had to enroll in the University of Minnesota's General College, a special college for students who weren't yet prepared for university studies." source: http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/kiosk/1102kiosk/general.html Hope some of this helps. --Alabamaboy 23:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Fact added, may need rewording. --brian0918™ 00:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What's his nationality? or do we just have to assume he's a USian? Dunc|☺ 01:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It says he was born to Norweigan immigrants, but if you're implying that such info should be in the lead section, I might consider adding it, or you can if you want. --brian0918™ 02:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Lead is too tiny, should be doubled/tripled in size. Lots of sections are stub-section size - either expand or remove section title and merge with other sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comment, the article is still undergoing pretty major expansion of content, the lead will be extended when it gets closer to the finished product.--nixie 23:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article looks good and just about ready to be featured now. But the intro still has room for improvement. (I just made some stylistic changes). "The resulting increases in food production..." would better be replaced by detailed information: Borlaug increased food production by such and such. Or at least a rewording to an active form: "His techniques increased..." "The green revolution" could be briefly explained in a short relative clause.--Fenice 06:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Algerian Civil War

I'm not really targeting this for FAC yet, since the serious dearth of pictures is unlikely to be solved for some time, but I've pretty much written it all myself, and I think I'm too close to it to see how it reads to others. So I'd love to get some input on what needs doing and whether it's readable. - Mustafaa 23:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The article is very well written and I found it easy to read through. A couple of things to consider before taking it to FAC would be expansion of the lead section up to three paragraphs, for example from the current lead its not clear that this is an ongoing conflict, the lead should be a good summary of the rest of the article. Consistent use of an inline refernce system would be good idea, especially where you have quoted specific numbers and quotes, some already have intext references, but others like the bombing of the Algiers airport claimed 9 lives and injured 128 people don't, you should move the existing in text refernces to a list and add refs for the missing ones, I suggest using Footnote 3 or Footnote 4. As far as images go it would be nice to see some more, you could probably claim fair use for Presidential images and so on depending on where you get them from--nixie 01:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, these are good points. I've started footnoting it now, and I'll try expanding the lead shortly. - Mustafaa 20:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Spamalot

Its just won a bunch of tony awards, and has a nice collaborative wiki page with pics, refs etc. what would need to be done to get it featured? what other info would be important or useful? Niz 19:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • One thing the article is missing is a plot synopsis, what actually happens in the musical- surely its not just a bunch of actors singing Monty Python songs. --nixie 01:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ok, "cast" section is no longer just a list of cast, it summaries the plot too. Niz 12:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Colonel Light Gardens, South Australia

I think this article looks complete. Can't think of anything to add. Zzymurgy 12:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you'd better find a way to get rid of one sentence paragraphs. And while I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, it seems incredibly short for a featured article.
Do any celebrities live there? Have there been any important events? Can you expand on the politics and the number of people who live there and their demographics?

- 131.211.210.14 11:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Imageboard

I've been sort of watching this article for a while and feel that I could use some input on what needs to be made better about it. Just start bashing away, though I don't think it's too bad. humblefool® 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear from this article how this differs from the various community art gallery web sites I've seen around the web? For example elfwood (http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/) has a huge collection of amateur art, some of it quite good. — RJH 03:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Elias Ashmole

I've been working on this for the last couple weeks, and finally got it posted. I guess I'm thinking about eventually proposing it for FA. Mostly, I want to make sure that there are no serious lapses, and that the level of detail is appopriate. (A note about the picture: there are much better pictures out there, but this is the best one I've found with reliable and complete source info.) PRiis 22:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I have done a light copyedit and added links (many unfortunately red - Garter King-of-Arms, for goodness sake - but there we go). An image of the Ashmolean may be a good idea. Otherwise, looks ready for FAC to me. -- 14:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for going through it. Yeah, a lot of red, but hopefully they won't stay red for too long. I'll look for a good Ashmolean pic. PRiis 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • My web searches haven't turned up anything suitable, so I've put in a request at WP:RP. PRiis 04:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's truly a pleasure to see the PRiis Model Featured Article Workshop under steam again! Hi, Pete, the Ashmole article's looking very good, but I think you'll get asked for greater detail on WP:FAC. Especially for a fuller Lead, and more detail in the first paragraphs. I understand the principle that he did more important things later in life, but I still think the first paragraphs are unnecessarily bald. If there isn't more info available, I'd still quite like more explanation. Take the paragraph "Ashmole was a firmly committed royalist..." It's more interesting to be told what that meant--to be reminded of who he was committed to--than to have to click on the royalist link (and be sent to a disambig page, yet). If it was me, I would also explain what being King's Commissioner of Excise entailed and what it says about his position, his loyalties, his status, his income (except that I wouldn't know ;-)). And what kind of a military post, through whose influence? Do you know how he "became associated" with Brasenose College, it sounds a little vague? Was there a political reason he left Oxford in 1645? Stuff like that.

Generally, I feel that the text relies a little heavily on having the reader click on wikilinks. Take the Philosopher's Stone. Of course that should be a link, for the reader who wants a full account and explanation of the concept; but I think there should also be an explanatory sentence around the link, for the reader who just wants to read this text--a quite honorable wish, which also needs to be catered for. The alchemy paragraph is very interesting! It raises some questions: it sounds almost provocatively exotic that an "annotated compilation of alchemical poems in English" would be an important alchemical work. How was it his most important work, exactly..? Oh, and a detail: the last sentence bothers me a little. How do you mean, "Though"? Why would the factors mentioned make him more likely to carry out experiments (as "operations" should perhaps be translated)? From your chronology, I get the impression that he abandoned alchemy before the rage for experiments--I'm a bit hazy on this, but wasn't it fairly common before the Restoration to construct oneself as an alchemist through reading books, rather than by getting down and dirty in the lab? Perhaps that's my prejudice (successfully floated down the centuries on a wave of Royal Society propaganda).

I love the final sentence, but the final paragraph is a little abrupt otherwise, with a lot of same-y sentence structure. Also POV: "He was an ambitious man with a strong will", etc. Your references look fine, but I should warn you that FAC has become a lot more concerned with inline references since your last FA: you'll certainly be asked to ascribe every dot of the opinions in the last paragraph to a particular source. (In fact this may come in the form of a request for footnotes, but don't believe anybody who tells you it's obligatory to give the information in that form--it isn't.)

I don't quite understand what the problem is about the image. Of course you've seen this lovely baby (http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-11/p-06.php) (scroll down). MQ Magazine, which is one of your sources, claims that it's from the National Portrait Gallery, in other words that it's the same (obviously cropped) as this mean little scan (http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?LinkID=mp00155&rNo=0&role=sit) which the NPG provides, according to their custom. Which part of the info do you consider inadequate? It's a little weird that the NPG says in one place that John Riley is the artist and in another that it's "after" Riley, admittedly, but if I were you I'd just quote the contradiction on the image description page and go ahead and use it. Unless there's some further problem that I'm missing? Best wishes, and again, lovely to see you back! Bishonen | talk 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All righty! Thank you for going into that kind of detail--it's nice to get this kind of reading, and I know it's not always easy to put your finger on just what's needed (but you do it so well!). I'm pretty clear on the work needed on the lead, detail on the early years, making things more explicit and not relying too much on links. So I'll get to work on that and the lots of other points. (I won't go through them one-by-one, but I've printed them out as a roadmap.)
I did notice that in-line citations seem to be a bigger deal now on the FA page. Do you think the assertions in the last paragraph are the only kinds of things that would need in-line citations? Are they expected for non-controversial biographical facts?
About the picture. Most of the other pictures out there didn't have any real source info at all. I do love that picture from the MQ magazine. I thought about it--I guess the fact that it's from the NPG is what makes me nervous. I know that these should all be public domain because of Bridgeman, but I worry that the NPG might be more likely to raise a fuss than some random .edu page (where I'm sure nobody cares)--especially because they already have a system for charging exorbitant prices for the use of "their" scans on the web. Anway, I'm pretty sure that one is "after Riley" rather than Riley. If you' think it's OK, I'd love to use the Big Face!
Thanks again for spending this kind of time, and I'll report back! PRiis 03:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Big Face: pish. It's we who should be raising the fuss, about the misleading copyright claims the NPG and other museums make on their sites to try to intimidate people. Anyway, Wikipedia is crammed full of two-dimensional representations of these 100+ year-olds, we have a template, {{PD-art}}, specially for the purpose of claiming them to be public domain, and I've never heard of any of the wiki image copyright cops having thoughts of questioning or deleting them. So, if it should turn out we're wrong about Bridgeman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.), Wikipedia is going to be in so much trouble that one more or less isn't going to matter. :P
About inline citations for the rest: well, on a common sense principle exclusively, by no means to clutter up the text like it was a research paper. Actually I think a little discussion of the sources as such wouldn't hurt any, and that could perhaps be made to conveniently stand in for specific inline refs—you know, the "this account is based on blabla unless otherwise indicated" kind of thing. Has Hunter updated Garnett significantly? Are there reliability issues? You could tuck anything like that out of the way as annotations in the reference section, or put it up front the way it is in John Vanbrugh ("Early life section"), or whatever would be more convenient. I suppose the final paragraph is in fact based on Garnett? If your formulations in that paragraph are very close to his—I sort of get an impression they might be—if you're pseudo-quoting him, you might want to think about having more of the quoting actual and acknowledged. I don't have access to the DNB (curses! workplace too mean to subscribe to it!) to take a look for myself, unfortunately. Please let me know if I'm not making sense here! I look forward to seeing this on FAC. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Phishing

This artical has been used three times as a source for articals written about Phishing in general. I nominated the artical to be a featured artical canidate, but the artical failed the nomination, on the grounds that it has featured artical potential, but it needs a peer review. The responce sub page from the featured artical nomination is here. --ZeWrestler 13:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The lead is too long for an article of this length. Either shorten the lead or expand the article. The external links section could use some cleaning. I would suggest sorting links based on subject and put the most important ones at the top. (An anti-phising site is useful, but shouldn't come before all sites with information on phising itself). Mgm|(talk) 15:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have shortened the lead for the artical, and put a good portion of it in a history section. I have also organized the links as you suggested. Thanks for the input. What other suggestions/improvements can be made here?? --ZeWrestler 02:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The first reference says (February 3) but the article states "2005-03-03". Regardless of the use of American or European standards for dating that would make it March 3. I would mention when articles were published for example: "Published: March 3, 2005" or even better "Retreived: March 3, 2005." You never know if the page ever gets updated. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • what part of the artical is this? --ZeWrestler 23:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, i see what you mean, and fixed up that section. What else do you see? --ZeWrestler 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this a good, timely article. It needs a little work though, before I think it could be a FAC:
    • The language style of Early History is too conversational — some examples:
      • "...AOL made tougher restrictions..." sounds odd to me. fixed
      • "...in around 1997..." gives you about a 3 year range! Can you be more precise?
        • fixed, but not 100% sure about the date, can someone look it up.
      • "...AOL got tough on that..." could be phrased more sharply.
      • Quotes around quotes, and quotes formatted more clearly.
        • Can someone else handel this one? --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • "So then the phishing moved..." – I was taught not to begin sentences with "so", "because" or "also" although I forget the precise grammatical issue. Anyway, it sounds too chatty. Something as simple as "The phishing then moved..." will fix these kinds of things, of which the article has a few.
        • Fixed up the mistakes mentioned here. I believe i got them all --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The "first mention" ought surely to be the first thing mentioned — merge it into the first sentence or two.
        • I moved this to the opening paragraph --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Generally, replace "--" with —, or – as appropriate.
        • I think i made the changes you recommended to this part, double check me on this. --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
    • The Additional attack methods is really only one paragraph on the section title. The rest of it is advice. The two should be seperated, remembering that WP:NOT a FAQ. There are many detailed documents on the prevalent attack vectors which could really beef this section up; the challenge would be to do in broadly lay-persons terms.
    • This article in general suggests that phishing is (or, given the tenses used, was) an activity confined to AOL. I form this impression because all the current attacks (bank website etc etc) are 'relegated' to an 'additional' section. In fact, of course, it is these 'additional' methods that make phishing a clear and present danger. Some better structuring and retitling might benefit this.
    • Don't put presently current examples like the IDN spoofing in, particularly when the example cited is specific to one (minority) browser. Especially considering that the problem is solved merely by upgrading to the current version! I have concerns that this part of the article will be in need of constant revision and would probably preclude FA status on that basis — by the time it were featured it would be out of date. There is a separate debate over whether Wikipedia should attempt to catalogue all phising threats, but this article probably isn't a good place to pile them up.
    • Is the Wiki allowed to single Ebay out for an example?
      • When i added this section to the artical, i was not signling out e-bay, i just picked a common e-mail attempt that has attempted to phish me on serveral occasions. I was using it as an example, not singling them out. -- ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whew! That might seem like a lot, but much of it is minor and by no means intended to eat the article. Hope that helps -Splash 01:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I started making the corrections you suggested. If i wasn't so tired from work, i would attempt to do more. If anyone else can help out and make some corrections to this as well, i'd be happy. thank you for your suggestions splash. I marked on them, which ones i fixed so far. --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Eamon de Valera

One of the most important Irish politicians of all time, critical in the foundation of the Republic of Ireland. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a great article. The only thing I'm thinking is that perhaps the article strays a bit from deV's biography and goes into such detail on the historical background that we begin to lose the focus a bit. I'm thinking here especially of "Neutrality in WWII" which is good and very interesting, but maybe should be in a History of Ireland article. I'd also echo the note from the FAC that maybe there might be a better way to structure the TOC. PRiis 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, forgot to mention--the article should list its sources, too. PRiis 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Auburn, Alabama

I've just finished a major re-write of this article. It's also the first major article I've written and I'd like to get some feedback on possible changes that would improve the quality of the article. Particular emphasis on areas where there is deviation from appropriate Wikipedia styles is requested.--Lissoy 03:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I've not read too many articles this good in a long time. It is well written, and keeps my interest. There is also an abundance of references and sections on every important point, with acceptable levels of information. It has a few minor grammatical errors (I corrected a few_, but nothing big. I like it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Good catch on the grammar corrections.--Lissoy 02:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

1) You'd have to summarise the =history= here and move the detail to History of Auburn 2) Please put a smaller image in the leadin section. 3) You have a lot of references, but which reference corresonds to which fact? you would have to use inline references. See Welding and Kalimpong for inline use. Any chance for a ==media== section? you could expand the =government= and =economy= section. Overall 6/10. Is not in the same league of comprehensiveness like FA's Mumbai, Johannesburg (large city) or Kalimpong (small town) though. What I like is the neatness of the page; the headings are well done.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • You might want to relabel the picture at the top to indicate that the view is downtown Auburn as seen from Haley Center on the University campus. Otherwise, a very good article. Great job.--Alabamaboy 23:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

History of Poland (1945-1989)

Another article that is close to FAC status. What do you think? And I can't decide which pic should be moved to lead (and eventualy featured on main page together with article) - suggestions appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is good, but not particularly well written. Also, there are numerous grammatical errors. For instance, you should refer to the Western Allies as the Western Allies and not just Western Allies. These are simple mistakes, but FAs should be very close to perfect. The prose is good, but not "brilliant". Also, it's 47 KB long, which gets really tiring to read. Perhaps this period could be broken down further? And there is only one reference, and the article is far too long for only one. The article is good and I don't mean to harp on it, but the nature of this page is to accentuate the negative. Keep up the good work.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Nice one again, Piotr. Grammar errors should be corrected, of course, but those are details. The lead is too long, I think. Also, I'm sure more books have been written on Polish history, a few more references would add a lot. -- Cugel 08:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Tnx for the comments. I will add some more references. Grammatical errorors sould be corrected, of course, but not being a native speaker I am not a specialist in this regard so this will have to wait for somebody with feel of English language niuances to come and polish it up. Lead is long, true, but consider it is the 'history of a country' series and remember the Wikipedia 1.0 guideline that lead should be a complete summary - I feel it is ok, although I will try to trim it down of excessive adjectives and such. As for 47kb size, well, you know I feel that the 32kb is the *minimum* limit for FA comprehensivness, and I have pushed through FAs over 60kbs :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
30KB is the point where the length of an article may be indicative of it being too long (markup and other non-prose text should not be counted toward that though). Going significantly above that carries a burden of proof that the extra detail is so necessary that including it outweighs the negative aspects of increasing reading time. Above all else quality should come before quantity. It is harder to be comprehensive with less text, but doing so is better for the reader. --mav

Nice article. I've made one or two tiny grammatical changes. Can a "nationalist tendency of a peculiar Communist sort" be clarified; I don't understand what that is? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not that sure myself, I rewrote it into 'a peculiar nationalist-communistic ideology' which I think is what this was supposed to mean. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Conservative Party (UK)

For an article about a major political party in the UK this is truly a dreadful article. Any ideas? JuntungWu 13:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Please read the introduction to this page. There are other pages dedicated to addressing what are considered poor-quality articles. — RJH 16:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know there are lots of other channels but I think those are inappropriate. --JuntungWu 05:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's been said before, but it seems to me (who doesn't know that much about the contemporary Conservative Party) that really it's not that bad of an article but it does have real problems, and those problems are largely structural. Since you're getting an overview in the lead paragraph, I'd think it might make more sense to start with the historical sections, then move into the present (I believe that having some historical understanding helps make more sense of the present situation), and then you could have the policy discussion and the sleaze. The bunch of lists at the end are probably inevitable in these sorts of articles, and just leaving them is probably best. Just one opinion. PRiis 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Education in the United States

I have watched this article for several months now and it has grown and improved amazingly. Half of the current article was once POV bullets. It has survived POV crises and I think it can survive them in the future as well, even though it is by nature controversial. However, imput is always appreciated and since I would like to eventually make it a Feautured Article, this is obviously the first step.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

One point I'd like to see explored is the US college admissions system. I know from a bit of knowledge that it is based on a lot more than just grades, where in Australia you need to get a certain score at school to get into certain courses. In the US, you need a certain SAT to get into a college, and then you can study whatever you like (right?). Some info on why this system is used, and why weight is placed on extra-curricualr activity like sport and the Arts. Also, a reference is made in the "History" section to a History of education in the United States article that doesn't exist. Is it being created, or is this just a dead link? Harro5 00:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think maybe we could expand on the admissions tests, but there is no set score on any test required. The point made in the article is that American education is not very standardized, which is why extra curricular activities are important. Colleges want to see students involved outside the classrooms, a positive note in a sea confusion.--naryathegreat | (talk) 22:50, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Previously, colleges and universities placed great emphasis on SAT/ACT scores and high grades for admission; the high school valedictorian was almost guaranteed admission to all but the most selective schools. This "intellectual model" focused on students who offered the strongest academic credentials, often without taking into account the ability of the student to exist in a community. The old stereotype (which in my experience was not particularly inaccurate) portrays intellectual students as eschewing any social-skill enhancing activities (high school clubs, sports, musical ensembles, etc.) in favor of uninterupted study.
However, as colleges and universities have moved towards a more community-centered model, the "well-rounded" student has gained the upper hand. These students may not present overwhealming credentials (straight-A's from all four years of high school and 1500+ (out of 1600) SAT scores), but present widespread interest in community projects, sporting events, and other extracurricular activities that indicate that a student is well grounded and able to function within a community. My experience is that universities are more interested in students who possess an adult attitude (demonstrated through broad interests) and the ability to peacefully co-exist with students, faculty, and staff in the university community. -- Essjay · Talk 11:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
A couple of things I don't see addressed here. The first is the issue of the long summer vacation in the U.S. schools. I could be wrong, but I believe it's about twice as long as in, say, England. Over 12 years that adds up to nearly the equivalent of a full year of lost schooling. (I think it's related to an old requirement for school children to be able to help out during the harvest season.) Also I believe that U.S. starts education a year later than in England. (I had to skip a year when we moved to the U.S.) So by the time you graduate, you're up to two years behind. Perhaps somebody else could confirm this? — RJH 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point, I'll add summer vacation; however, it already states when students begin schooling and I don't see any point comparing this to when students begin in every other country. People can deduce that themselves.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, unfortunately I have to disagree. The point of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to create a puzzle in deductive reasoning. If the summer vacation in the U.S. differs substantially from most other countries, that's a notable element that is specific to that education system. A student in the U.S. is probably unaware of the difference and would likely never check. — RJH 15:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It strikes me that several things are missing from the "how-far-are-we-behind" mathematics. (Please forgive me, much of this is off the top of my head, from informal discussions with colleagues.)
  1. First, some countries have a practice of giving students one afternoon off per week (I seem to remember that France offers Wednesday afternoon off, but I cannot recall the source of that information), which accounts for a significant amount of time over the course of a school year.
  2. Some countries have extended lunch times (U.S. children typically have between 20-30 mins for lunch; other countries offer upwards of an hour. I seem to remember a discussion of two hour lunch periods in some country; the idea was for students to go home for lunch.)
  3. Also, there are additional public holidays in some countries (most U.S. schools have less than ten public holidays that are celebrated with a day off school (Labor Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day & the following Friday, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Election Day, and one or two "inservice" days for teacher traning). (I seem to remember the French practice of "faire le pont" where if a holiday falls on Tuesday or Thursday, the Monday before or Friday after is taken as a holiday as well; this only occurs in the US with Thanksgiving.)
  4. I am not familiar with the length or frequency of term breaks in other countries, but U.S. students typically receive two weeks for Christmas holiday and one week in the spring in addition to the June-August summer vacation (and many schools are moving thier schedules later into June and earlier into August). (Secondary education in France suggests a September to mid-June schedule, a time period that would equate closely to the US system.)
  5. I am also not familiar with start/end times in other countries, but my experience has been that most U.S. schools begin between 7:00 and 7:45AM, and end between 2:30 and 3:30 PM; schools that offer breaks between classes usually offer 5-7 mins. If other countries begin later in the morning, or end earlier in the afternoon, or offer longer breaks, this time will add up as well. (Education in Germany suggests an 8:00AM-1:30PM day, easily two hours shorter than the standard US school day, with 5-20 min breaks during the day; that's potentially 14 hours less per week.)
It strikes me that the potential is available for a significant amount of time off from school because of the differing systems; I don't believe the claim that U.S. children receive two years less schooling is accurate. If you factor in days off, afternoons off, different start/end times, extended/additional breaks, double or triple lunch times, etc. there is the possiblity that the systems may be very similar in actual time spent in the classroom. -- Essjay · Talk 11:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I must say that there simply isn't enough reason to ramble on about the summer vacation thing for much space. It is briefly discussed here, but I don't think we need to discuss the comparison to breaks in other countries in any detail (there's currently a sentence) because this article is about Education in the United States. If somebody wanted to write Summer break (education) or the like go ahead, but this article really doesn't seem to be the place.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely that there is no need for an extensive analysis of school breaks, I was simply responding to the request above: "So by the time you graduate, you're up to two years behind. Perhaps somebody else could confirm this?" (emphasis added). -- Essjay · Talk 03:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see inline cites when statistics are quoted, I think its very important that statistics are verifiable. Things that are completely absent include vocational education and adult education (teaching adults literacy and numeracy etc). There is a brief discussion of gifted education but no equivalent section on special education. Where do community colleges fit in in the scheme of things?--nixie 11:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never thought of those before, with the exception of community colleges, which is discussed in the following excerpt:

Some students choose to attend a "community college" for two years prior to further study at a college or university. A community college is run by the local municipality, usually the county. Though rarely handing out actual degrees, community colleges may award an Associate of Arts (AA) degree after two years. Those seeking to continue their education must transfer to a four-year college or university (after applying through the same admission processes as normal freshmen, see articulation). Some community colleges have automatic enrollment agreements with a local four-year college, where the community college provides the first 2 years of study and the four-year university provides the 3rd and 4th year of study, all on one campus. For example, the University of Houston System has partnered with community colleges in neighboring cities to provide bachelor's and master's degrees in cities that are only served by community colleges. The community college awards the associate's degree and the university awards the bachelor's and master's degrees.

As you can see, over 3/4 of the undergraduate study section concern community colleges. I personally think this is enough discussion (I'm actually pretty sure you just missed it). Also, I don't feel that the gifted discussion is brief. As for vocational education, that is a hard topic to cover. And adult education is worth a mention. I added a section over special education, see what you think.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

As nixie suggested, the number one problem with this article is that there are no citations. Statements like "a majority of Americans approve of teaching evolution" should have citations to back up their claims. Without these citations the statements cannot be trusted. The Kurt Cobain article provides a good example of how to do citations. Without citations this article will never become a feature article. Pictures may also benefit the article if it is to obtain feature article status. Cedars 03:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the citations and I added some. Because the Manual of Style identifies numerical and plain links as bad style, they have short reference names. Please look at these and point out locations where others should be added (or you could even add them yourself ;-) --naryathegreat | (talk) 05:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a list of things that I think need clarification and sources to the talk page of the article. I think you can safely remove the terminology section from the article, no one will question your use of American English. For section 7 you can probably remove United States from the section headings since the article is clearly about education in the United States.--nixie 04:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've also added a list. Good work on the article so far. Cedars 08:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Inspector Gadget

I've dont alot of work on this article and think that it may could be featured will a little more clean up and possibley some more information.--The_stuart 23:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Ideas for improvement:
  • Lengthen the lead (probably two good sized paragraphs would be sufficient - include more info on the main characters and the background of the show)
  • More development in the background information would be helpful. For example, justify "After the first season the show was a worldwide hit" with what people said, size of audience, etc.
  • Remove exclamations! They don't belong in a good encyclopedia article! Ever! =)
  • Nor do rhetorical questions ("but will they make it in time?" in "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas")
  • The "Other Incarnations" section needs work -- more info, better flow, and sentences that end (see "Gadget Boy & Heather")
Hopefully this is helpful! --Spangineer (háblame) 16:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, reading that has unearthed some fuzzy memories! It looks like you've taken account of most of Spangineer's comments, which is good. I've a couple more to make but these are based in part on Saturday morning memories of a long time ago so be gentle with me!

  • Is it possible (within copyright restrictions) to get a sample of Brain's voice. The description is great, and I think audio would be too. From a DVD or something? I wonder if the original voice is on any released media.
  • Didn't his car have various special abilities too? I'm sure I remember it being able grow 'legs' and dodge the traffic that way, as well as being able to float.
  • Might be worth explaining what Penny did with her Computer Book.

-Splash 01:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Virtuti Militari

The highest Polish medal. Besides the fact it has no references (I am working on it), I think it is ready for FAC. It looks as good as current FA Medal of Honor. Would you have any other comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Glad you like the article :) As to the comments - it indeed lacks references. Again, as with other articles I created, I can find a plethora of useless sources (that is Polish-language books I actually used) and a number of probably-related English language books I've never read. Which sources should I include? Halibutt 20:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • The tables look messed up on a 15 inch monitor - adding heaps of white space so you might want to play with the layout. I'd rather read some more prose on selected recipients than the list at the end so you might want to work some more names and details into the text, having more text might fix up the format too. You should only include the works you have used as references, include a list of further reading for the english language works since they weren't used for writing the text. --nixie 12:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[