Wikipedia:Peer review/Human/archive1

Human

This article is looking better than ever after the a long and wild trial by fire. Please help us make it a WP:FAC. Sam Spade 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. This is very well written, and quite comprehensive to my first glance. If I saw this on FA, I think my only objection would be its length. Unfortunatly, I'm not sure how to suggest to bring it down any... it seems like just about all of it has been divided up into subsections already. In analyzing this, I think that even the length is passable... each section is indeed in summary form, which is good. Hm. Sorry I can't help more right now. Maybe others'll have more constructive criticism? Fieari 06:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• This is an impressive article, and I don't think its length is a problem. As such an important subject it will, however, need to be immaculate to get through FAC. One quick suggestion is that the very brief "The word people" section be merged into the longer "Terminology" one. The "Mind" and "Psyche" sections also need a rewrite. Why are they almost wholly focused on psychoanalysis? While a notable theory, it is far from the only one, and today is not even very widely held. The "Religion and philosophy" section reads like a list of bullet points. I think a general overview, such as what we have in the lead sections of the religion and philosophy articles, would be far more useful than the current far from comprehensive listing of worldviews. - SimonP 18:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to double check the image copyrights, but the length does not bother me as much as it could others. Though, the Table of Contents could be shortnened a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Soon I'm going to be opposing FACs for articles where raster images are in use for content more correctly displayed using vector graphics in the SVG format. Human contains five such works, the pioneer 11 image, the migration map, the skin color map, the brain, and the psyche. Because the human image was fairly simple, I recreated it using Inkscape, althought it took me a while. :) The migration map looks like it was orignally created using Illustrator, ... I would be glad to assist converting it to a SVG (the landscape can stay a raster object), but it is a truly wonderful image which really must be placed into a more editable form before this article reaches its potential. The skin color map looks like someone should be able to provide a SVG version, the psyche, I could convert if no one else gets to it before me. The brain I don't really care about, but it's missing source information, so something should be done about it.
• I noticed that many of your images are not very big. Requests for larger images are a common question asked in the wikipedia mailbox, since our software autoscales you should always use the larges images possible. Generally I like to see images at least 1200 pixels in their largest axis, and preferably larger. This is an article of such quality that I think the desire to reprint it will be great, as a result I would oppose featuring this article for low resolution images where I might not another. The USDA should be contacted and at least asked about the two girls image, if they do not have a higher resolution version I will not oppose on the basis of that image. The skeleton is great, (thanks Raul) although a more isolated photo would be better if one ever became available. Vitruvian Man is good considering its use. The freud image is too small and copyrighted, it should be replaced the current text of the article does not justify a claim of fair use. The photo of the thinker is untagged and probably copyvio, 2D renditions of 3D art do not have the same copyright status as 2D renditions of 2D art. It is also low resolution, higher would be prefered but isn't a deal breaker considering the use of the image. Cavehand's resolution and image quality are poor. Again not a deal breaker, but I think the article would be greatly enhanced with a better image. Okay, I've given you enough reasons to hate me now. Feel free to contact me to help with making any changes resulting from my comments. --Gmaxwell 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've found a somewhat higher res Freud image, looks like it is from the same series, confirmed taken in 1921, so it's PD-US. I've uploaded the image on commons and changed the article. --Gmaxwell 03:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)