Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Newsletter talk
Peer review talk

The peer review department of the Paranormal WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Paranormal WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject Paranormal}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. 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. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

  1. Move the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing the primary page, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject Paranormal}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Requests

[edit] Robert Taylor incident

I bashed out a quick article that was requested. I'd appreciate it if others could scan over it with a fresh set of eyes to see if anything can be improved upon. --Factorylad (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early psi research at SRI

This request for peer review is respectfully submitted in conjunction with the recent request here on the Remote Viewing article. The material in Early psi research at SRI, which has been characterized as a mainstream science POV fork, should probably be considered as a candidate for merging into the remote viewing piece. jxm 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monroe Institute

The Monroe Institute is doing cutting-edge work in areas that are clearly paranormal: Remote viewing, expanding consciousness, communicating/assisting the dead, OBE, etc. There's a bit of a row concerning the possibility that the organization's stub represents an ad. I'd like help clean this up and I'm looking for suggestions from level heads. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Maxwellordinary 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Moen

Bruce Moen has written five titles dealing with assisting the dead and collecting verifiable evidence. In my research I've uncovered an active blogger zone that he maintains at no cost to whomever who may wish to learn his techniques.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about the article being a rank ad, and I'd like to help clean it up. Would someone please give this a fresh look, share some ideas, and I'll try help out. Many thanks in advance Maxwellordinary 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chupacabra

I did some mayor cleanup to the page a few months ago as well as some sourcing, however I'm not exactly familiar with the structure that its expected of a article concerning the paranormal, the article probably needs some help from users specialized in this field, thanks for your time. -凶 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda Triangle

Currently, what I am doing is re-writing the current articles involving the Bermuda Triangle. This is to remove some of the juvenile or amateurish writing that is already present, or to include more-detailed, factual info. From the Triangle main page I have also went into the following pages and re-worked about 65% of USS Cyclops; 85% of Flight 19; 100% of Marine Sulphur Queen; 100% of V.A. Fogg (but it could use more info); 85% of Star Tiger and Star Ariel (this involved merging both articles). The ultimate goal is to have a good, sound category that anyone can be comfortable with in researching. I don't mind a peer review at this time, but any help I could get, as far as writing, finding sources, would be appreciated. Carajou 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 feet , use 20 feet , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 feet .[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), analyze (A) (British: analyse), analyse (B) (American: analyze), grey (B) (American: gray), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 06:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reality shift

This start class article is in need of help in order to address the issue of its neutrality being disputed. Since the neutrality became disputed, I've added additional references. The addition of more reference sources from both fiction and non-fiction will be most helpful, as will a "to do" list to help organize future development for this page. Critics of this reality shift page have voiced a concern of the article being unproven, non-scientific "POV nonsense," and while it may be difficult to convince the staunchest skeptics of the reality of the reality shift phenomenon, any and all help in establishing a better description, history, and possible explanation section for this topic will be greatly appreciated. It's clear that the biggest missing section on this article currently is the explanation section... and, as with all paranormal phenomena, there are no simple answers yet that will satisfy paranormal detractors. This topic is related to paraphysics, and hopefully, it will be possible to provide links to paraphysics articles and others, as explanations as to the cause of reality shifts are developed and expanded on this page. Cynthia Sue Larson 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clophill

Article abvout Clophill village in Beds, with section about activity at the old disused church. Suggestions of it being merged with Clophill Church. Anyone want to have a look at this to see what they think about keeping/expanding and merging the articles?GazMan7 11:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Several passages from this page appear to have been lifted directly from this site: http://www.iopr.org.uk/4724/8402.html.

For example, this passage is lifted almost word for word

Page version: "The ruins of St Mary’s church have a very sinister reputation. There is, however nothing sinister about why it fell into disuse, being only a village Clophill had little use for two churches."

Original version: "The ruin of St. Mary’s church, Clophill, has gained something of a sinister reputation. Although there is nothing sinister about why it fell into disuse. Being only a village, Clophill, had little use for two churches."

perfectblue 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summerwind

I've comepletely re-written this article and considerably expanded it to cover the houses entire history from cradle to graves, and in a style more beffitting of the subject matter (can't prove it to be true, can't prove it to be false, but can WP:V and WP:RS what is supposed to have happened and why). I've also added maps to its location and logged everything in neat chronological order for ease of reading.

I've written to a picture copyright holder or two to ask permission to re-print, but they haven't got back to me yet, and I've contacted the son a former owner to see if I can get some more accurate dates (and a WP:V citation to back them up).

perfectblue 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

2006