Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 4

I don't know if this article has been edited enough in order to be peer reviewed (I guess it meets the majority of the criteria) so I'd like to ask anyone available to give their opinion and suggestions. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hi, good olympic stats article so far. I'll try my best for some feedback. First, make the "footnotes" appear just at the bottom of the "Competition" section, as a footnotes section is usually reserved for references and tiny notes can actually be included in the article itself. If that's too difficult, then just rename it "Notes". Also the intro paragraph could use a little fine tuning to make it sound more official for an encyclopedia article and make sure that it can be universally understood as best as possible by someone not familiar with the topic. For example it says, The first three in each group advanced to the semi-finals which were played in the Pavelló d'Esports de Reus, Reus, on a league-system, what is a league-system exactly? Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you for your suggestions! I tried to follow them as best as I could. I hope it's somehow better now. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::No problem, I went and corrected the writing a bit, it reads great now. Bobo is soft 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I've checked your edit and (apart repeating some wikilinks which already existed) I believe you helped a lot! Thank you so much, again ;) What about the sub-articles? Could you take a quick peak at those too, or should I open a separate topic for them (they're 4 separate pages but all related to this parent article). Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::Your welcome. I looked at the sub-articles and they look fine. You could also change the footnotes to notes there as well. I think that the Group A and Group B articles are small enough that you should consider merging them and renaming the article "Groups A and B". One benefit it is easily to manage just one article than two on the groups. The articles themselves are trivial sports statistics and one article should do for both. Bobo is soft 02:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:::All done. I merged the group articles and renamed it to Roller hockey at the 1992 Summer Olympics - Preliminary round and updated the main article accordingly. I think it's "tidier" now, no? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I made :Image:Visible digital watermarking.jpg a while ago to illustrate the concept of visible digital watermarking, but ever since I uploaded it I've felt uncomfortable with the fact that it's my name written across the image (because it seems like some kind of self-promotion). The reason I originally chose to use my name and the date is that these are properties of the image that will never change. Other possibilities I have considered include the text "Wikipedia" (but this makes the image less useful for other projects), "watermark" (but this isn't suitable for other languages), or some meaningless number or series of shapes. What do people think about this? —Bkell (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Since it's trying to illustrate watermarking, and since the author and copyright date are usually included in such watermarks, I think it's a good example of what it's trying to illustrate, hence a good encyclopedic image. I wouldn't worry too much about it being self-promoting, unless you're concerned about releasing your name. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give me some tips on how to improve this article? Or is it already pretty much done?

:Hello, nicely done and thanks for this good example. This seems to meet most of the criteria for being a perfect article (WP:PERFECT). Just a couple of things though... In the lists, it was weird that the description of the individuals started to the left of the bullet, but I fixed that. Also a couple of statements could use references or rewrites:

:* The book was generally very well received, with many claiming it portrayed the changing face of an increasingly competitive college admissions process, and

:* However, some critics questioned if profiling the admissions practices of a specific Northeast, highly selective liberal arts school would lead to an accurate portrayal of college admissions throughout the country.

:Maybe these were intended as introduction to paragraphs that were to contain the references to back up these claims, but the sentences following each of these don't back up these introductory statements. (PS. Please sign your posts to discussions with four tildes: ~~~~. That will automatically be replaced with your signature when you save the page) Sancho McCann 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This is one of my first real articles I've been working on, and while it still needs some work I'd really appreciate any input anyone has. I'm sorry to use such a formal channel but I havn't made any wiki friends yet and I'm hoping this will get that ball rolling!

It's about the formation of a racemic mixture in chemistry. I've tried to detail the broad concepts, as well as scratching the surface and pointing towards where others could get more information. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

--Robert Stone, Jr. 09:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:Looks pretty good for a stub, but most of that science stuff went waaaaaayy over my head. Perhaps some external links to notable sites talking about said topic? DÃ¥vid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for checking it out David Fuchs! Could I ask what was too complex and I can make sure I explain that better? I tried to put the complex stuff like SN1 with a link regarding that reaction and such for anyone who was curious, do you think I should just come right out and explain it in this article? Thanks again for taking a look! --Robert Stone, Jr. 21:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Ok first off, I've only taken introductory bio courses, so nothing fancy, keep that in mind. First off, maybe make Stereochemistry section an internal link or something like that? there's a page on it, so it could help... secondly, I think that the lead could be added on to. Ok, so I know its the partial conversion of... etc., but what significance does it have? Otherwise people not specifically looking for that term are gonna leave. DÃ¥vid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:Robert, I'd agree that the article looks in good shape for an early one. Biggest hole right now is a lack of references. Look at Wikipedia:Citation_templates for the how-to. What you've got in there so far is mostly pretty general - citing a couple of college-level chem texts should be adequate.

:The article makes it sound like carbocation is the only way that racemic mixtures formed; that doesn't seem right.

:A picture would punch it up a bit. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Image_Request is a place to ask for help. David.Throop 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::Not to be too critical, as many tech/science articles here share this problem, but the article needs to be written down to the generic audience--the customer reader--not to place a premium on technical crispness like that of a professional journal. If you keep an audience in mind of 11-15 years, you should strike it right--it's totally clueless introductory material to those kids, so will serve the divorced housewife barefoot and pregnant as well, so to speak. {{indent|3}}As such, I'd move up and expand the definitions section, expand the intro, and write a bit more contextual explanation into each sentence. Kudos on a great first effort. Reread WP:MOS on introductory paragraphs if you're doing sci-tech articles, and review the use of bold text as well. Most of those articles generally fail right there--this is a general encyclopedia, not to be written for the grad or even the college student. A lot of explanation can be contained by a careful selection and by the introduction order of wikilinks--there is no reason to not link on the second or third use, vice the first if it aids the flow and understanding. Best wishes // FrankB 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to cleanup the Curly horse article, but I have doubts about it's worthiness, given it's origins as an advertisement. It may be beyond recovery. I think Bashkir Curly is far closer to Wikipedia's standards that Curly horse should probably be a redirect. Other thoughts? Xaxafrad 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

: Redirected Sancho McCann 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

: Although the redirect was already done, there are some further improvements that you can do. Check out the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:STYLE) for guidelines on capitalization of headings for example. Also, as in most articles, more references would greatly improve the article. Sancho McCann 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've developed this template to bring together all discrimination-related articles into a sensibly arranged, but compact and non-exhaustive form. I think the arrangement as it is now makes the most sense to me, though perhaps terms could use tweaking. Looking for broader feedback. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:It seems a bit excessive. On one article it was crowding another tall template. Why not use a bottom of page format where it doesn't impose so much on text and other boxes on the right margins. That's generally what history topics do with big templates. // FrankB 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on this article and some suggestions on how to grow it. --Kimonandreou 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:It would be a great improvement if you added references for the information, especially sentences like "is recognized as one of the most eminent figures in the international art scene". I tried looking on Google for information about him outside of Wikipedia and could not find anything other than his inclusion on a couple of lists of painters and a fan website (the one you included as a reference), so I suspect you won't get many references off of the internet. Maybe you have access to some publications that are not published online... art journals or magazines? You could cite those as references. (Also, two of the four references/external links do not point to working websites). Sancho McCann 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the suggestions! I'll work on the references (I did take them out of books). As for the statement is recognized as one of the most eminent figures in the international art scene, it was from a speech from the Greek Minister of Culture when Andreou was presented with the "l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" award. How would I reference that? --Kimonandreou 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::That's a good question. I don't know if I have the answer, but my opinion would be that if the only source you have is a speech, then what you would be contributing is original research (WP:Original_Research). To avoid that, you'd need to wait for another source to reference the speech, or maybe right out declare the same thing. Then you could include the information in Wikipedia. Sancho McCann 07:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I made some minor fixes to the references. 1) Stated that that section was from the minister's speech 2) Fixed the links (updated or stated when discovered invalid as per WP:Citing_sources). I'm still looking for journals and magazines. --Kimonandreou 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I made some major edits to this article over the last month (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_N._C._Nix%2C_Jr.&diff=101252001&oldid=85649792]). I'd be interested in whatever feedback anyone has. JCO312 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:Great improvement. I especially like that every statement that could possibly be questioned has a reference. However, the way that you have organized the references is confusing. I suspect that many of your references are used multiple times and this is what you're trying to show with "N. 4", or "Id". The proper way to use a reference multiple times is described at Wikipedia:Footnotes under the Citing a footnote more than once section. You basically name a reference the first time that you use it: http://www.link.com Description of this reference. Then when you want to use it later, you can just write (The backslash at the end of the ref tag is important.) Sancho McCann 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had a couple editor reviews, but I would like to have my article writing reviewed. How can I improve? Thanks, Dar-Ape 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Like most many articles for feedback, my one suggestion would be to improve the references. Try converting them using the citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Also resize them a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references />

I am requesting feedback on this article. Please let me know how I might improve it. If anyone knows of sources where I could find more information on the band, I'd really appreciate it.

Brief description of the topic: Harvest was a band from 1977-1995. They released 14 albums and 2 videos (that I know of) during their tenure. Their genre is Contemporary Christian/Gospel.

Thanks for any suggestions, jamielng 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hi there. You've done a good job with the style of this article. Other than some layout issues in the discography section, it fits in well with the rest of Wikipedia. As for the content though, I have some suggestions for improvement. It isn't apparent from this article that the Harvest meets the notability requirements (WP:MUSIC). You will need to work on showing that "it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Sancho McCann 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Hello,

::Thanks for reviewing the page. The layout issues you spoke of, do you mean the way that I incorporated music samples in with the discography? If so, is this allowed? Why or why not? I tried to give impeccable fair use rationale.

::Re: the notability requirements, I thought that multiple meant two or more. I know that I'm pretty slim right now with only two, but they're the only ones I could find so far.

::Thanks again for your review.

::Take care,

::jamielng 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Hi. No, for the layout issues, I meant when I view the page (maybe at a different resolution than you), some of the [edit] links aren't in line and interfere with the adjacent columns. The fair use rationale seems right on. As for the references, yeah, two might be enough, but it would be nice to have a few more. I'll try to find some also. Sancho McCann 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I found some. I'll let you add these as you like.

::::* [http://www.cbn.com/700club/Guests/Bios/Paul_Wilbur033105.aspx] This describes Paul's involvement with Harvest and also has a short history of the band part-way through the article.

::::* [http://www.riveroflifecbs.com/whos_who/PaulWilbur.htm] Another Paul bio, with another short history of the band.

::::Maybe you have some access to magazines that aren't online. You could reference these too.

::::Sancho McCann 17:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Dear Sancho,

:::::Thanks again for your help. Re: the interference with columns, I also have experienced this on other computers besides my primary one. I'll switch to two columns instead of three to avoid this - although it will lengthen the article.

:::::Thanks a lot for looking up some more references! I'll work at getting their content incorporated. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any magazines that aren't online. I'm on the lookout, though, and would like to delve into the local libraries to see what I can find.

:::::Thanks again for your feedback. Please let me know if you have other suggestions,

:::::jamielng 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::I've made the suggested changes.

::::::Any other feedback would also be appreciated,

::::::Thanks,

::::::Jamie L. 16:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have recently completely rewritten the article, basically deleted and started over, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gordon_Park&diff=103483167&oldid=101212020 here] is the difference, if you really want to see it. I am aiming to get this up to good article status, and was just looking for a neutral opinion on the matter. Any suggestions of improvement- content, tone, sections, citation or whatever needs improving would be very much welcomed. I take it the standard here is to answer here on this page, but, in case I forget I posted this, could you leave me a message on my wall to say that you have responded? Thanks. J Milburn 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting general feedback for the entire article. It isn't a very long article so it shouldn't be that long to read through. Another user and I have recently made a lot of updates and changes to the article, in an attempt to bring its quality up. It still needs some expansion, but we would like some feedback on what to improve. Thank you. Bignole 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:It seems more than sufficient for the subject matter, particularly for a pilot episode that never made it to the tube. There's some fine tuning needed here and there, and the page could use some images. Otherwise nothing really sticks out, other than a certain excess in the amount of speculation (albeit cited.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the feedback, I didn't think anyone would read it..lol. I will confere with the other editor that works on the page. Bignole 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:It looks pretty complete to me. Maybe a little tweaking of Reaction as well. But the article could really do with an pic or two. After that, goto peerreview. Davey4 11:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good day! I've made a major edit on the article "Wu Teh Yao", a political scientist. It's practically a new article, since the information prior to my edit was "political scholar, educationist" (or something like that). I would be grateful if someone could look into the article and help on the formatting, citation, or even adding information. There are photos of Professor Wu, but I did not upload it as the copyright info is unclear. Thanks in advance!

Regards,

Eng Aun 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've translated this article from its counterpart at de: and added some new information that wasn't in the originally translated article. It might have some linguistical quirks though, and I've probably put in the occasional unclear wording. doco (☏) 11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I started this article a few days ago. It's about a lesser known, Central European cousin of the cochineal. I'm not a native English speaker, so please feel free to point out (or, better, correct) any linguistic or stylistic mistakes. Thanks, Kpalion 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kpalion, it is a magnificent article. I could only find a few minor items to adjust for grammar. My compliments on your work. Ken McE

The Geography Cup article is the first full length article that I have written, so any comments whatsoever about what to improve, what to remove, etc. are much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Grhs126studenttalk 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think this is a very, very solid article. I'm trying to look for areas for improvement, but it all looks very good. Good internal citations, especially. The only thing I could suggest would be putting even more information in the article, such as quotations from founders and participants. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but I think you've done a fine job. --Tractorkingsfan 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've recently done a lot of work on this article, mainly integrating the "trivia" section into the article and doing stylistic edits. Since I've done this over about nine edits, I'm not sure how to provide a diff, but please look at the article now as compared to how it stood at the time of the 14:24, 31 January 2007 edit by Erikster, who has also been helpful. To be honest, I'm mainly interested in whether this article still deserves to be classified as Start-class. --Tractorkingsfan 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:Why was this request archived without being responded to in any way? I made considerable edits, none of which could be summarized by one diff, since they were spread out over time. It strikes me as rather inconsiderate just to say, "this one doesn't fit the bill, so let's ignore it!" If I had been contacted, I could have formatted the request differently to inspire someone to pay attention to it. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A UK Social care initiative that gives people money to arrange their own social care.

First article I've written, might well be a stub. Dunno. Would appreciate some feedback.

NatashaUK 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi just a couple of thoughts after a quick glance.

• There seem to be alot of spelling errors in the article and it needs copy-editing. see: Wikipedia:How to copy-edit
• You only seem to have a reference for the lead, the entire article needs references. see: Wikipedia:Citing sources
• You may want to rethink the page layout you seem to have alot of two or three sentence sections. see:Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Layout
• The article doesn't have any categories. See: Wikipedia:Categorization

Happy editing— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

:LOL. Thought I wanted feedback but it turns out what I actually wanted was someone to write 'We love this article. You are the greatest of all wikipedians and a paragon of encyclopedic writing' Ah well. Thanks for the feedback, I'll make the changes you suggect and see if we can't get that response in my second article, tbc.

NatashaUK 09:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting article feedback about Oldversion.com as it now appears to read as an advertisement.

• The article was nominated once for deletion, but was left with no consensus.
• It has been tagged since October 2006 for lacking sources.

I made revisions recently, but most recent revisions now have made the article almost look like an advertisement to me (capitalized categories of software in the Software section). The talk page has it that my most recent revision casted "a very negative spin on it".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OldVersion.com&action=history Article history] shows that the most recent edits were made by User:MrToasty and then an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.118.255.138 IP user] and then a user with a rather long edit history.

I do admit that the my revision contained original research and facts that needed proper sources and that its Criticism section appeared larger than the Advantages section. — Which is why I need comment on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OldVersion.com&oldid=99980430 my revision], too. If comment on my revision cannot be put in here, I welcome relevant comment on my talk page. -Mardus 06:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I created this artlicle about LJM and I want your advice on it and since it is only a stub. I would appreciate if anybody could expand it. Thanks in advance.

:I wonder how much can be written on the subject. Can it be included within Enron or Andy Fastow? Xiner (talk, email) 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking for suggestions as to what needs to be done to make this article suitable for rating as "Start" or preferably "B". Ringbark 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:You'll need some inline citations/footnotes. See WP:FN for the initial info you'll need. Your references, to be complete, should use the citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Also resize your references section a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references />

Tangatawhenua.com is a web-based Maori-focused newsletter (the only digital periodic serial of its kind). Is the article NPOV enough? Looking forward to any assistance you can provide. Atutahi 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• The neutrality of this page seems fine to me. The statement that "It is the only web-based media company of its kind in the world" is somewhat ambiguous. Does "of its kind" refer to that fact that it is Māori run and operated? — RJH (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture posted for Steven Ford is not Steven Ford. It is his brother. Steven is the son with the hair loss pattern similiar to that of his father, former President Gerald R. Ford. Steven is the handsome one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.238.71 (talk • contribs)

:The talk page suggests that this has been corrected. — RJH (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've been working on this with a few other main contributors and have a feeling that we're all pretty involved with the subject matter of this article, so it will be good to have some feedback from the community. Comments on anything are appreciated... layout, content, presentation, style, future work, whatever... Thanks! Sancho McCann 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Overall it seems fine to me. I only found a few minor issues that you may wish to address:

:*The lead section states that "The purpose has since changed" but it does not say to what.

:* Department of National Defence and World War Two could be linked in the lead section.

:* The statement that "cadets... are not expected to join the Canadian Forces" could be interpreted in a negative manner. Would it be better to say, "..are not required to join the Canadian Forces"?

:* The hyphen in the second paragraph, Ranks section, could be replaced by a &mdash;.

:Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the feedback. I agree with all of your observations, and have worked them into the article.Sancho McCann 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is my first article!

I have translated from its counterpart at ja: and would love your feedback. Specifically tell me if you notice any style mistakes or content holes. Also I am wondering if the Imitation Products section is biased.

Oronamin C Drink (オロナミンCドリンク), produced by Otsuka Chemical Holdings Co., Ltd., (distributed an sold by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.) is a carbonated beverage available in Japan. It is commonly called Oronamin C or Oronamin. Its name is similar to the Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. beverage "Arinamin" and its name comes from Otsuka's own Oronamin H Ointment and the main ingredient, vitamin C.

Thanks! --Quylob 11:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to provide the best feedback I can. Here are my suggestions:

• 1. In the advertisements section especially, or wherever possible (intro section is okay though), consider reducing the amount of names and words in Japanese lettering. It is not useful for the average reader on English Wikipedia and if someone wanted to read Japanese in an article, they would do so in the Japanese Wikipedia version of the article.
• 2. Inline citation references are an essential part of any good article on Wikipedia. See WP:FN for the proper info on how to add them.
• 3. The Genki hatsuratsÅ«? advertisement battle section contains almost all red links, and the list of names seems non-notable. Consider shortening or removing that list.
• Other than that I don't know enough about the topic to correct anything else. Also, a tiny suggestion, when you make an edit to an article, consider doing medium sized edits instead of tens of tiny edits and clogging up the article history, but that's not too important.

Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.

As for #4, do you use an external editor to make changes? So far I only edit in a web browser, so I'm afraid of losing changes and have the tendency to over-save.--Quylob 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:I'm glad to help. I edit in the normal Wikipedia space in a web browser, so I don't know anything about external programs. I think Auto Wiki Browser is a popular one though, I'm sure there's lots of other editors who are familiar with it. Bobo is soft 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the easier changes you listed and am looking into some citations ... thanks again! --Quylob 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made some major edits to this article (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blur_%28band%29&diff=105908457&oldid=100691174]). I would be interested to see what feedback anyone has for it. ErleGrey 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:The intro seems a little long. The second two paragraphs that are pretty dense and the info is repeated later in the article. Maybe trim down those two paragraphs to give a shorter overview and it will be a pretty solid article. Zzz345zzZ 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on the citations and POV issues on the article. I'd like some feedback on whether it's got a NPOV or not now and whether I need more references and citations (for what's already written).

There are some sections that still need to be expanded (feel free to expand them) but, knowing where the article currently stands would be great. --Kimon 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

:Seems pretty NPOV to me. Not sure if you need numerous lists for all of his sculptures and paintings though, seperated out by date. That seems a little excessive. Dr Popularity 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

::Thanks! So, who can remove the {{POV}} tag? Also, I broke the artwork into separate lists as I'm still working on the individual lists. I may change the structure and break them into themes but, by date range seemed logical to me. I'm open to suggestions though. --Kimon 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I've removed the tag, as far as I'm concerned, it's baseless (and if anyone re-adds it, they should add an explanation on the Talk page). I would personally just have one list for sculptures and one for paintings, and only if you can't integrate them into the main article (I've no idea just how prolific he was). Compare to similar articles like Vincent van Gogh and El Greco, which only list the notable works of art.

:::Thanks! Good idea on just listing the notable works of art. I'll take a stab at it. I was basing this article on the model used by the Pablo Picasso one where all works are listed. --Kimon 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is my another major edit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chung_Ling_High_School&diff=102188363&oldid=99765816 which the difference is here]. This article concerns a school in Penang, Malaysia offering secondary and pre-university education. Again, thanks in advance!

Eng Aun 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:It looks like good work. Here's a few things I noticed:

:* The introduction is far too short (suggest looking at Wikipedia:Lead section)

:* The table of contents seems too long. Perhaps the sub-section headings in the "The campus" section can be replaced by bolded text?

:* Automated PR reviews flags sub-sections that begin with "an" or "the". So "The identity" could be "Identity", for example.

:* Your history section is in need of citations.

:* I'm not sure about the use of so much non-English language in the text; most non-native speakers won't know what that means anyway.

:Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article has undergone lots of change recently and was wondering what should be added/changed. I was thinking adding more about the actual content. Zzz345zzZ 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

:The page text looks fine, but it seems entirely favorable to the web site. Has there been any publicized criticism? What are their sources of income? Some of the citations are improperly placed before punctuation. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi i am wondering if i am doing a good job on a article i made on wikipedia.org

This is it. Banga City

PLease post some feedback on what i can improve on on my talk page.

--Avenue 51 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:Did you mean Banga (City)? — RJH (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just created this article and would love to receive any feedback. Thanks! Grover cleveland 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:There's perhaps a few too many section headings; almost one per paragraph. Could they be reduced in number? Also your citations are preceding punctuation. (Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags) Other than that the article seems fine to me. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay_Rabinowitz&diff=107732984&oldid=78813624 expanded this entry] quite a bit, though nobody seems to be paying much attention to it. That many unanswered edits to it in a row makes me feel a little bit self-conscious. I'd be thankful if somebody else would take a look at it. — CharlotteWebb 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:There's a lot of information in the article and you have your citations but, the article is lacking any headings. Take a look at WP:WPBIO for some pointers. You should also add an infobox (perhaps Template:Infobox Politician). I'm not an expert editor but, I'd start there. --Kimon 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some improvement work on this article from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colombia_Three&oldid=107123942 version I first saw]. Weggie added the headings I didn't get round to adding as I planned to do that after adding the much needed sources. Any suggestions for further improvement please? One Night In Hackney 12:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:It's a heck of a lot better now! I would like to read some more about their history prior to being arrested, what else did they do in Colombia what training were they providing, how were they contacted, international reactions, etc. Since the article is on the three men that comprise the group, I would like to know more than just the arrest and result. It sounds like a very interesting story and I want to read a lot more about it. --Kimon 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Osborne Reef is a failed artificial reef that, ironically, is causing more damage to underwater habitats than it is providing them. I effectively wrote the entirety of the article, and have received few edits since. I'd really like to get some input on the article, as well as maybe some help with introducing further links into other articles as appropriate (to clear out the {{tl|orphan}} tag). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:Hi pd_THOR, the article looks great actually. The inline citations add the required verifiability to the article and the general structure looks fine for now. Rest assured that an orphan article is not always a non-notable article. Some points for improvement are:

:*Remove some of the red links and only add internal links later if those red links are ever created. And remove the red links on the author's names in the references section.

:*Dates should be written as August 21, 2006 instead of 2006-08-21. The latter method is only used for inline citations.

:As for the orphan tag, there isn't much you can do if there are not many artificial reef articles, perhaps "Environmental disaster" is a possibility you can work with, but I'm not an expert.

:Bobo is soft 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:: I cleaned up the dates easily enough, and removed the redlinks from the reference authors that I doubt garner their own Wikipedia article. I created an article or two to rectify some of the redlinks in the article itself, but nothing crazy--and nothing that wouldn't warrant an article on its own anyways. I gave some thought to the {{tl|orphan}} problem, and without indiscriminately adding "see also" to various applicable articles, I'm not sure how to well-insert this article into others.

Anybody have other input for the article; suggestions? Is this WP:GA submission material, or should it just stay as is for now? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

About non-realted people with the same last name.

:Is there anything to this topic besides possible coincidence? You will probably want to avoid material that could be excluded under WP:NOT. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestion for content or changes? DavidYork71 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:I usually go right to the end of the page for new entries, so this might get missed up here at the top. Here's a few thoughts:

:*The page looks a little too "listy" (lots of bulleted lists rather than prose).

:*It is a little weak on citations. I'd also recommend using the teplates on "Wikipedia:Citation templates" so your citations are in the standard format.

:*The page could use more illustrations.

:*Too many sections use the page title in the section headings. (See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28headings%29#Wording.)

:*Why doesn't the article mention Diaspora?

:I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Both articles created by me. Where can I access a copy of the draft Agreement and how can I get a picture of the Indonesian Justice Minister for this?

DavidYork71 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like you're getting more advice than you probably wanted over at the article's AfD. You did a nice job of getting proper attribution from reliable sources and that's why the debate's going as well as it is. Even so, my first thought upon seeing the article was that it would be better placed as a section of a larger article for now. Once it gets too long for the parent article, it can again be split off into an independent article. My guess is that is what the consensus of the AfD is going to be too. Don't be discouraged, though; it's a very well done article with good graphics, citations, and it's very clearly written. We all get some of our stuff shot down once in a while, so try not to let it get to you. Best Wishes! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this article is about the USMC Colonel who died the morning of January 22, 1991 at his backyard quarters on MCAS El Toro in Orange County. I would appreciate any feedback that might be provided. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like the article doesn't exist --Kimon 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::It was a redirect to :James E. Sabow. It was deleted along with that article following an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James E. Sabow (2nd nomination) —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I have just embarked on a review of the Shuttle-Mir program missions, and have just completed my first article rewrite. The original article was made up mainly of original pre-flight NASA text, so seemed to be stuck in an extremely odd timewarp. I have restructured and rewritten the article and added a new image, and would appreciate any comments as to how I could improve it further, comments I will find useful as I sort out the other mission pages.

Here is the comparison page for the original article and my rewrite: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STS-74&diff=108635015&oldid=108345935]

:A nice, decently thorough article. Here's a few observations that may or may not be useful:

:* The introduction is somewhat brief. I could do with another paragraph.

:* Is there any information on early mission planning? When did the crew begin training for the mission? How and why were the crew members selected?

:* Inconsistent date format: 19/11/95 and November 11, 1995, for example.

:* Probably should replace dash with &mdash; in "November 15 - 19" section

:* You might make mention of who was on board the Mir at the time. It appears that there were no crew members exchanged. Was there a reason for this? Can this be explained?

:* "...docked to Mirs Kristall module..." => I believe should have an apostrophe: "Mir's".

:Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot for the advice - i'll do a bit more research and have a review of my text, then get back to you. Colds7ream 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::OK, i've done a bit more ferreting about for facts and had a review of my text, fixing, I hope, most of the issues. I'd appreciate any more comments, as i'd really like to make this page my first Good Article. The comparison page is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STS-74&diff=109122468&oldid=108635015] Colds7ream 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I think you're pretty much at GA now. If you don't want to try a peer review for some reason, you might as well go for it and see if it passes. If it fails you can always address the comments and then try again. — RJH (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the feedback - I have nominated the article, so let's see what happens! Colds7ream 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been lurking for some time on the WP, improving my tact, understanding and skills. I recently wrote my first fresh article from scratch last week on a growing town in California (New Cuyama) that did not have any data, and spent the next few days revisiting it to catch any extras or detail that might have been left out. I'd love to get some feedback on this article, my style, and content. Thank you Wikipedians! McA 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone?

::It's well written and is very clear to read. Interesting too. You should find some more references for some things like that bit about the name coming from clamshells or the Native Americans who lived there previously. Your references section should come before the external links section. You might want to look into using citation templates so that your citations come out in a standardized format. You also should place an appropriate stub tag on it. Lastly, most town articles list some vital statistics like a population figure. Overall it looks like an article with a good future to it. Good work! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this my first article on Wikipedia. Its been up for a week now and I was wondering if there are any suggestions about things that I need to do to improve it.

Thanks;) Bader_isu

:Try adding useful internal links.--Rmky87 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on artificial limbs was previously a stub and I expanded it so it was a complete article. I could use any general advice on the article (this is the first one I wrote).

:The article may be found here: Artificial limb. ^talkGiler S 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• It looks pretty decent to me. Additional illustrations would make it a more appealing visually. You could add a section on Media uses, such as in the film The Fugitive (1993 film). — RJH (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::Great job so far. For the footnotes, you could shrink them a bit by placing < div class="references-small">

::< references />

Would anyone please review the Rotary phase converter page.

I am hesitant to do any of the chnages necessary to this page without some support. As a newbie I would like advice and as a person with commercial interests in a related area I do not want to be biased or exposed to charges of bias.

The issues.

• 1. Rotary converter covers the subject in a less biased manner. Rotary phase converter is redundant since it is siply a species of rotary converter..
• 2. Rotary phase converter is full of value statements that have to do with a particular manufacturer --such as-- "The best types of RPC use actual three phase generators" a statement which would be difficult if not impossible to validate: The best in what sense?? Horsepower/dollar?? Voltage balance at full load?? Best for my application??

The generator claim is one also made by American Rotary, which is the commercial company you get when you click on the external link "Parts For Building a Phase Converter". It should at least be supported by some sort of reference to literature. I have never seen this claim made in a technical article.

• 3. The link to "article on power factor" goes to an "organization", every page of which is an ad for "PhasePerfect", another manufacturer.

The link to "List of commercial phase converter manufacturers" which was apparently added by a generous wikipedian to give these folks a place to post, is a redirect back to the Rotary phase converter page.

• 4. The article is full of odd verbage.. "The quality of three phase power generated by such a phase converter may or may not be satisfactory," and "Besides RPCs (the most popular technology used to convert phase), there are other technologies available today that may or may not perform as well as this proven technology."

The page was likely built by a rotary phase converter manufacturer as evidenced by the external links and the arguments for what is the "best" technology.

I am tempted to edit this article but am held back by the above considerations and questions. Should Rotary phase converter exist at all or just be an expansion of the Rotary converter article? There is very little real information in the article although it does contain some good links to "how to build your own" style articles.

Is anyone interested in this matter and willing to take a look at the page? I would be happy to make changes if they were vetted first. Better yet would someone else, clearly unbiased, become interested and do some of the editing. If I make changes, should I post a request here or elsewhere to get them reviewed and edited?

Thanks

--Ottojas 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently rewrote this article to fix the "inappropriate tone" of the original article and provided some links to related groups/topics. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any additional sources of information for the group. The group's website http://www.parentsofsuicide.com/ doesn't provide any history on the group. I'm looking for feedback on the rewrite and also any additional sources of information for the group.

Robevans isu 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:If I were to come across the article now I'd AfD it for notability. Work on external sources and asserting notability or it will be, eventually. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this article deleted?

:I'm not really sure, but I don't find an old AfD template for that page. Was it a well-developed page? You might need to ask an Admin for help. — RJH (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:: The deletion log lists the reason as CSD G11. CSD G11 is a speedy deletion criteria that is meant for "blantant advertising". In other words, "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Note that I cannot actually see the deleted page. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first article on wikipedia. I'm wondering what you think needs improving? Also, do you think it is NPOV enough? Thanks.

:It is very nicely formatted and well written. It's a much easier read than many technical articles I've come across. It does, however, come across as sounding a bit like an advertisement and it doesn't assert the company's notability. This is important because the article could be deleted if it's found to un-notable. Here's a guideline for asserting the notability of a company. You might also think of adding some citations so people can see that you're complying with the Attribution policy. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and have a great day! —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I created a page for Treehugger.com. I'm new at posting on wikipedia and could use some feedback on my page.

Thanks,

:Please see Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This page needs to reference reliable third-party sources. Also, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Introduction; the article, for example, should have links to other articles that are relevant to the context. —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:Try not to type headers in all CAPS. Ionescuac 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

It was suggested to me that I request a peer review. I don't think this article is developed enough for that, so I'm posting it here. What would you recommend I do to make this article better? Is the portal placement OK? Should I delete the external links? They were already there, but they don't seem relevant to the article. Thanks!--LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

: Hello! Good work on the article! You might consider inline referencing and citation templates for organisational purposes. I guess you got all of the information from that one source, but different subpages. In Gunston Hall, I dealt with this by making a "Citations" section as a subsection of the references section, allowing a shorter list of references followed by a more detailed list of the subpages of those references. Anyways, you don't have to do all that work, but I have found it is easier to do early on.

: It's good to see that you are using a reliable-looking source, but it might also be good to get some outside information from secondary sources on the NBCC. [http://news.google.com/news?q=National%20Black%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn News] might be particularly interesting.

: I hope that helps a little,

: ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for taking a look. I'll ask again after I've edited using your suggestions.--LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

::OK. Can someone take another look? Hope I don't have to post another top level topic. Thanks!--LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

::: It looks great to me, although I guess you could get more feedback at WP:Peer review. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gunston Hall is a United States historical building, and was the home of George Mason. I am looking for general ideas for improvement, hopefully things I am capable of. I am not an expert on the topic. I am particularly interested in getting a second opinion on the reliability of the references. Thanks! ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

: I posted a request for peer review. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I created the majority of this biographical article, it received a bout of attention after being on the Main Page as a WP:DYK entry. I'd like to consider it for B (or maybe even A) classification, but want to receive feedback and hopefully spur somebody else to decide on the articular quality in my stead. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:A very interesting article! It has good narrative form and is interesting throughout. Good illustration and well referenced. I noticed a few places where it wandered between present and past tense. It could use some sections and probably should be tagged as an ongoing event. Overall, not much to gripe about; good work! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I did a little work to ensure only currently-relevant information is presented in the present tense, and added a little sectioning. I also tagged it as an ongoing court case, but cannot find any subsequent information to supplement the article with. Thanks for the input and do you have any other thoughts? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I created this about a month ago. I'd like especially to know if everything is sufficiently explained, and if there is anything missing from the article that you would expect to see. Thanks. --Sopoforic 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:Some questions:

:* Could you clarify the meaning of Diophantine analysis without the reader having to go to another page?

:* By the Sun god, did Archimedes mean Apollo?

:* By triangular number, does the poem mean a cube?

:Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

::With regard to the first: I'm not sure it'd be appropriate to do so. The particular meaning of Diophantine analysis isn't very important to understanding what the problem is--it's just the field of math that the problem falls under. I suppose that I could write: "...is a problem in Diophantine analysis, the study of polynomial equations with integer solutions." Is that sufficiently useful to justify inclusion, do you think?

:::Well I've received criticism in the past for submitting articles to FAC that use terminology that is too technically obscure for the average reader. Usually at least a brief explanation of the terms is requested. It's up to you really, but most non-mathematicians won't know what 'Diophantine analysis' means. Your example looks more than sufficient. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::Part the second: Helios, I think. I can look that up to verify and put it in. Was Apollo actually the sun god?

:::According to the Apollo page he supplanted Helios as the Sun god. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::Part the third: It does not mean quite that, indeed. I've provided a link for it (triangular number), since that is probably not something most people are familiar with.

::Thanks a lot for your help. I deal with math all day, so I'm not always aware when I say something non-obvious. --Sopoforic 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I know the feeling. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly give me your feedback for this article. I am interested in this subject and further wish to improve this article. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaraj&diff=111882587&oldid=106193814] for difference in the earlier and current versions. Thanks--Shahab 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:The language used bothers me a little bit (e.g. "Actually, the key concepts..." and "It's actual meaning goes much beyond simply..."). You should probably try to reword this to have a more encyclopedic tone (don't say 'actually,' the whole second sentence of the lede may be unnecessary, etc.).

:The section "The Swaraj Movement" is essentially just a timeline, it seems, and would be better as prose with some more information to add context (what sort of effect did the establishment of the Navajivan Trust have?).

:Aside from these, there are some general style issues: section headings should have only the first word and proper nouns capitalized; you should have access dates on URLs used as references; you should include titles if possible for web addresses; the quotations should be worked into the article; you should make sure that the capitalization of swaraj is consistent within the article; you shouldn't repeat the title of the article in section headings, generally.

:I hope this is helpful. --Sopoforic 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks. I've tried to implement your suggestions. What do you think now?--Shahab 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:::It's much better, I think. Some of the wording still doesn't seem very good, but you've definitely improved it by adding context and better explanations. I'll see if I can rewrite a paragraph or so later to show you what sort of changes I'd make to the wording.

:::What still needs improved:

:::*You don't need to link to Hind Swaraj in the external links, since there's a wikisouce link already to it.

:::*You should use for the title of the other link: "Swaraj Foundation home page" or something like that; use its title rather than a description. A description in a addition to its title, though, would be fine.

:::*You don't need access dates for external links unless they were used as references--and if they were, then they should be in the references section, instead.

:::*You shouldn't duplicate links in the see also section that are also used in the article.

:::*You should perhaps try to work some of the most closely related things in the see also section into the article, as well.

:::These are mostly pretty minor things; the biggest thing that needs improved is just the wording, which I'll try to help with later. Otherwise, the article is much better. Good work. --Sopoforic 15:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would love to have some feedback on this article.

At the beginning, Cademuir was a Scottish School stub. It is about a school now being closed. This is the first article I am actively working on. It was quite a deep resarch work to bring a nearly-AfD-stub to something like Start-Class. I've added an image and some basic data on the right and described the last facts on the school. I want to learn from my edits and further improve this article. Recently I found some advanced statistics, but I don't know if it was worth an inclusion. Are there enough sources? Did I include enough photos? Should the table have the GPLed logo instead? If possible, wouldn't it be bad to include more information? My edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cademuir_International_School&diff=110805862&oldid=80574955] Thank you ! --Lazer erazer 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make Cúcuta a featured article, please send me your feedback.

--Ricardocolombia 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

: You've done a great job with this article, I can't see any huge errors, problems, or omissions. You can rightly be proud of what's been achieved here! Dr Popularity 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

: Good work. Solid integration of pictures, graphs, and info. Could use a few more reference links. Zzz345zzZ 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

: It looks like a nice solid article with plenty of information and pictures. Not bad. :) Ionescuac 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

: This is a very good article already. It seems to have been translated from Spanish or written by a someone whose English is a second language, so it needs to be edited into a more "natural" English style. I hope someone with a bit of free time can do this. -Arch dude 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

: I was turning the prose into more natural English, but being the idiot I am, I closed the tab before saving it. My only criticism is the awkwardness of the language at some points. Overall though, it is a very good article, which has a high chance of being featured somewhere down the track

General checkover, is there anything you feel could improved upon? --treelo _talk 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:For your references see Template:Cite web and make sure your web sources are fully referenced. It is not enough to just have the URL, but the title, date, access date, publisher etc. are need as well. Also, there should be no space between a punctuation and a footnote. Bobo is soft 06:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Added More information to the 'Ted Healy and his stooges' section. I would like to get an idea what the community thinks is lacking from the article (not just the section I edited), what is not explained, what is unclear etc... (all comments are welcome and very much appreciated)

-- DTGardner 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:It's very well written and thorough, but at 56k long, the article becomes somewhat tiresome to read. The Ted Healy and his stooges section, for example, could stand alone as an independent article; interestingly the eponymous article you linked to in that section is a two sentence stub, I think it would be better if that were reversed. Another problem causing the article's length is the laundry lists at the end: The external links section is out of control and needs to be seriously pruned (I myself try to keep them to < 5 entries). The tributes section also needs to be shortened as does the catch phrases section. Does the slapstick section need so many examples? The members section would probably look better expressed as a wikitable. The sections could also be better organized; for example the Social commentary and satire section should probably follow immediately after the History section. Citations: For an article of this length to only have two citations is not so good— although I'm not sure whether the Books section and the Further reading section are meant to also be citations. You should use the :citation templates to achieve a standardized format for your references, and I would suggest the use of the layout at :Template:Reflist for your references section. Despite my criticism, I enjoyed the article and left better informed than I came. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

major edit to this page - I'd like to know how well this article flows now. Gobonobo 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! This is my second major article revision, and I'm kinda pleased with it. The original article was pretty much only Start Class, with proposals to merge and delete it, and I've restructured it, added lots of extra text, put in images and links and a fair amount of citations. I'd like to get this article to GA and then FA status, so any feedback would again be extremely appreciated, as the feedback I got for my last article, STS-74, helped me get it to GA! The comparison page is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shuttle-Mir_Program&diff=113101308&oldid=111380004]

Thanks, Colds7ream 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Former senator from Illinois, the article was choppy when I saw it first. I tried to clean it up and almost single-handedly made the inline citations (there was no citation at all before, which is kind of strange for a senator). Please give feedbacks so it can be improved further. Wooyi 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 different ways that vegetable oil is being used in vehicles, each with an article. Together these seem to have a bright future. There are many pages like hydrogen economy, ethanol economy, etc. where the characteristics and potential of other energy systems are discussed, so I made an article for vegetable oil economy. This is my first real article. I think parts of biodiesel probably should be moved to this and I started to discuss that on the biodiesel talk page. Any help appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincecate (talk • contribs)

: Hello, Vincecate. A few suggestions related to the Vegetable oil economy article itself:

:* Lead paragraph: Avoid self-references in the article's lead paragraph. Instead of saying "This article...", say (for example): "Vegetable oil economy deals with...". Also, the subject of the article (i.e., "Vegetable oil economy") in the lead paragraph should appear in bold face.

:* Capitalization: The first word of some of the wikilinks in the article are unnecessarily capitalized. Examples: "Biodiesel around the World"; "Air pollution". Links to articles are always case sensitive, except for the first letter of the article name, so Air pollution and air pollution will get you the same article. Also, only the first word of section headers should be capitalized, as well as any proper nouns (if any). See here for more info. Also, some of the wikilinks in the See also section needs capitalization.

:* Embedded lists: In some cases, an embedded list may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence, which can be hard to read, such as the list of energy technologies in the Future of Energy for World Economy section.

:* Images: Per WP:MOS#Images, consider right-aligning the first image in the article, and staggering the remaining images left-and-right.

:* References: The list in the References section currently looks more like a list of external links instead of full citations. Consider using the relevant citation templates between the .. tags instead of just the URL.

:* Categories: Category links should go at the very bottom of the article, but before interlanguage links (if any).

:* Templates: Consider repositioning the {{tl|environmental technology}} template from under the See also section to the top right of the article.

: I hope this has been of help. If any of this is unclear or if you need help with anything specific, feel free to leave me a message! —Xhantar^Talk 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Thanks much! I have done most of the easier stuff. I saw something about a bot that fixed up citations. Is there really such a thing? If I do nothing will they get fixed after awhile? Vincecate 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm pretty sure you have to fix the citations on your own. Bobo is soft 02:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out how to request feedback. I've been working on this article and would appreciate it if someone gave it a look. We're having some difficulties figuring out how to properly frame/interpret the relevant caselaw on this statute, and frankly I'm not sure how Wikipedia or encyclopedias in general deal with issues of legal interpretation. Iamtfc 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

: It kind of looks like a big wall of text. Adding a picture or two would spice it up a bit and don't forget to site. ;) Ionescuac 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:A few references would be nice alongside those pictures. Wording is fine. It will never fbe fun like an article on Disney, but needs a to be referenced to solidify and some pictures to spice it up. Try Wikipedia Commons for soemthing suitable. Rgds, - Trident13 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I picked up a stub article and expanded it, "The Battle of Teruel." I am wondering if it is still a stub. I am still doing the research on casualties as that data has been elusive.

Many thanks

GenghisTheHun 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

:I'd say it's not a stub article. It looks like you have multiple citations to "Hugh Thomas" and four different versions of his book listed as the references—it would be difficult to determine which one was used for the page citations. — RJH (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is about a charitable organization. I don't know what to do about the name The is actually a part of the name. It isn't searchable. When I search for 'The Peace Fund', it comes up. When i search for 'peace fund', it doesn't. Any suggestions about what I should do? Also I know it needs more independent citations - can you also check for NPOV? Also, any other suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.--LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:Please disregard the searchable question. I suppose it hadn't been cataloged by the search engine yet. Now, it is showing up just fine. Any suggestions regarding contest would still be appreciated. Thanks.--LtlKty^{talk | contribs} 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this article, and would appreciate suggestions.--Tabun1015 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:I'd like to see information about the ship-building techniques of the period, and what innovations these particular models provided. (E.g. development of bulkier, sail-driven ships for use in the N. Atlantic.) It could use a history section, including major ship-building nations, the nature of their fleets and any key naval battles. Also is this specifically europe-oriented? How about a discussion of the rigging? Is there anything on ships built for river navigation? Thanks.[http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba61/feat2.shtml] — RJH (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am new to Wikipedia have recently written a new article on fluidized bed reactors. This article is about a chemical reactor device where a bed of solid particles is fluidized or vigerously moved around by a fluid. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for additional content or other possible changes. Thanks in advance for your help and input! Hughesy127 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:It looks fine to me. Here's a few comments.

:*This [http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/IMMOB/fluidized-bed.htm page] describes a limitation on the velocity that you might want to mention. Also you might include something about the "excellent heat and mass transfer characteristics" in the introduction.

:* This sentence doesn't quite make sense to me: "Various utilities also use FBR’s for coal gasification, nuclear power plants, and water and waste treatment settings." It seems to be switching topic in mid-stream, going from applications to utilities.

:* Where does the "gas" come from in the following statement? "The high gas velocities present in this style of reactor often result in fine particles becoming entrained in the fluid."

:Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a new article on an early civil rights activist who played a major role in ending school segregation. Any suggestions for revision will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

::For your references use Template:Cite web and make sure your web sources are fully referenced. It is not enough to just have the URL, but the title, date, access date, publisher, etc. are needed as well. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just posted a complete overhaul of this page. As it's my first WP contribution, I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Before I worked on it, there was virtually no sourcing and a good deal of what I didn't think to be encyclopedic content/language. Here's a link to the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Sowers&diff=114682815&oldid=111020744 Thanks in advance. Sanfranman59 01:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)