This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
I see; and you have removed the {{coi}} maintenance tag too. Overall, I think this is not a bad article, but I do have reservations that you are Dr. W. Chris Winter, the author of much of this work, and thus conflict of interest issues may appear. I'm sure you have seen the message I put on your talk page; perhaps (when this page is more complete) you could request a peer review to ensure objectivity? I'm not sure how else this could be addressed. Rhebus (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your input. I want to be as transparent as possible and would welcome a peer review. I will continue to try to strengthen the article and pull in outside references. With the attention this concept has received recently, I wanted to make sure that online information about circadian advantage was properly defined and referenced. I welcome any further input and have no problem with the site containing references to their being a potential conflict of interest or similar disclaimers.Wcwinter (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply