Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
Shortcut:
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Contents


Arts[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

Proteus (video game)[edit]

Previous peer review

This article has been at Peer Review twice already, receiving no comments either time, and has recently been at FAC. The FAC received a limited response and was not promoted; I'm requesting a peer review with the aim of the next FAC going smoothly. My main concerns currently are that of quality of writing, but I would also like comments on other aspects of the article.

Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 18 April 2014, 16:53 UTC)----


2013 NFL season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on changes I have recently made to the article and with an eye toward eventual nomination of this article as a good or featured article. I have made substantial changes to the article's structure which diverges from the pattern established by other NFL season articles (e.g. 2012 NFL season and 2010 NFL season). I feel that these changes enhance the article's coverage of its topic, but I would love to hear opinions from others. I have asked for comments from the NFL WikiProject, but have so far gotten no responses.

Thanks, — DeeJayK (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Comments from Shudde I have a few comments, these are only very brief, but if you want to nominate the article for GA I think they'll be useful.

  • I'm not sure about having the article start with a list of tables. If it were to remain as is, I think I'd have an introductory paragraph for both Standings and Postseason giving context to the information. As it stands it will not be widely accessible.
  • The lead could be expanded as per WP:LEAD
  • In general, the article seems to be a collection of lists or bullet points. If this were in a print encyclopaedia would it be presented this way?
  • I'd do your best to reduce things like jargon and geographically-biased terms. Even something like "4pm ET on March 12" makes little sense to a non-American. ET? What is that?
  • How were things like "Notable events", "Scheduling highlights", "Major trades" decided? If there is a reason for the list of Major trades for example, then maybe say what the criteria are in a sentence or two at the beginning of the section.
  • I think the article could do with a large multi-paragraphed prose section that would incorporate the major points from Notable events and Records and milestones. This would be a lot of work, but would make the article more encyclopaedic.
  • I think some fancruft could be culled, and some of the more crufty material split off into separate articles. At the moment the article is > 200kb so this may be warranted as per WP:SPLIT.

I've got no doubts the article is well sourced and covers all the material it should. But like I said above I think it could do with a substantial prose section and some culling of the lists and bullet points (or the conversion of the bulleted stuff into paragraphs). Looks like a lot of work has gone into this, and is quite impressive, but just think a large prose summary of the season will make it bit better. Hope this helps. -- Shudde talk 03:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Response from DeeJayK
Thanks for reviewing the page and providing your feedback. These are all excellent points and I will work on implementing your suggestions into the article. I've got to admit that I find this article a bit tricky simply because so much of what is included is (or should be) covered in much greater detail in another article. For example, the individual team season articles, like 2013 Denver Broncos season, would be expected to have much more detail on the seasons and games of each team, the 2013 NFL Draft article covers the draft in more detail, the 2013-14 NFL playoffs article covers the playoffs and the Super Bowl XLVIII article covers the championship game. Because of this, I've had a hard time determining what really belongs in this article and in how much depth things should be covered. In some ways, this article really functions more as a hub from which readers can drill down into the more detailed coverage in these other article. Hence the over-reliance on things like lists. I guess a more thorough re-thinking of the structure is in order.
I've got some questions with regard to some of your more specific points:
  • Re: jargon and geographical terms like time zones - when time zones are used I've made a point to link the time zone at least the first time it's presented in each paragraph. I'm not sure how one presents times without including this info. If you have any specific suggestions on what changes you would make, I'd love to hear it.
  • Re: fancruft - Can you be more specific on what you would consider "fancruft"? I assume you are referring to the rather long list of records and milestones. I agree this list is rather comprehensive — perhaps this is something that could/should be broken out into it's own article? Do you feel like that section could stand on it's own? Perhaps the list of awards should also be broken out? Are there any other sections that you feel contain trivia not worthy of coverage in this article (or at all)?
Again, I want to thank you for sharing your opinions. Once I have a chance to implement your suggestions would you mind if I reached out to you again to have you take another look? Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 16 April 2014, 22:03 UTC)----


D. Djajakusuma[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC and would like some feedback regarding prose and accessibility to those not well-versed in Indonesian history.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • "Upon invitation from Usmar Ismail," Perhaps, "After being invited by Usmar Ismail".
  • " before leaving it after completing the comedy Masa Topan dan Badai in 1964." The before/after is unpleasing. Is the name of the film really relevant for lede purposes?
Early life
  • " As such, in early 1943" perhaps "Accordingly, in early 1943"
  • I suggest the various translations of Cultural Centre be consigned to a footnote. That sentence could usefully be split
  • "To promote a sense of …" this sentence might also usefully be divided.
  • Semicolon changed to period. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
INR
  • "Anwar later wrote that he had also gone to Banten to ask a kyai to make him impervious to bullets." This sentence is ambiguous, centering around the "also" Either someone else went to Benten or Anwar went somewhere else, I imagine. And who's him?
  • "when the Dutch colonial government held control of Jakarta" perhaps "with the Dutch colonial government in control of Jakarta"
Entry etc.
  • " General Assault of 1 March 1949" link?
  • Nothing blue yet, sadly. Redlinked (I have several books here to write an article with).
  • "owing to the smile of a waitress" Hm, I don't know. Maybe "transfixed by the smile of a waitress" or similar.
  • "while at UCLA " Did he transfer from USC? Please also check the use of "UCLA" a little later on. Perhaps also one of the "lessons" (used twice in sentence) could be changed?
  • My apologies, I seem to have misread the source. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Last years w/
  • " the director had abandoned too many traditional aspects of the puppetry." perhaps "ignored" for "abandoned"?
  • Fair enough
  • "their two teenaged daughters who are in the throes of puberty" perhaps "adolescence" for "puberty"?
  • Alright
Style
  • "This regional-focused adaptation" Huh?
  • "Indonesians should focus on local arts and not continue to depend on Western theories." Is "theories" really the word you want? It seems oddly contrasted with "arts".
Legacy
  • I'm not sure what you're describing there is "legacy".
  • Fair enough, retitled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyhoo, good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 15 April 2014, 16:08 UTC)----


Flipnote Studio 3D[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it! That includes the possibility that there is too much information...I would like feedback on what information is too in-depth and unneeded for the article, as well as anything that's unclear, or anything that's incorrectly done, etc etc.

Thanks, Sforzando (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Would you be able to find reception for the game? Famitsu is a well-known Japanese reviewer. Additionally, perhaps Western media outlets like IGN and GameSpot have offered opinions on the game, even if not full-fledged reviews.
  • Also, the more third-party (i.e. not by Nintendo) sources you add, the less in-question the article's notability will be.
  • The level-4 subsections in the article (e.g. "Flipnote Gallery: Friends") are a little too detailed. Those bullet points really aren't necessary, and I'd prefer if all of those subsections were merged into "Online services".
  • Three images may be a little much for fair use. I'd recommend removing either the second or third one, as they don't illustrate a whole lot about the app's features or general gameplay. (To put it in context, including the friends online would be like a Pokémon game article having a screenshot from the menus – apparently, even a screenshot of the overworld, a major and unique part of the game, is too much to ask, though.)
  • If you're trying to get the article to GA status, it may be ineligible while there are still plans for a Western release but it hasn't happened yet. That was how Pokémon Black and White failed its GAN, for example.

Tezero (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 15 April 2014, 00:04 UTC)----


Titanfall[edit]

Video games aren't known for attracting robust peer reviews (especially since there are so many FACs to attend to right now), but I'm looking for feedback on an article I've been building for a while. Looking for some advice from those interested on where I may be missing the forest for the trees. Any standard feedback appreciated—would like to take this to FAC eventually. czar  01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

plsreviewbigandwispthx

Here are the major obstructions I see:

  • "Many critics considered Titanfall to be the next step for the first-person shooter genre,[86][87][92] and the game received abundant publicity from video game journalists." - This sentence isn't really necessary, as both parts are covered elsewhere in the section.
  • I'd separate Reception into "Pre-release" and "Reviews" or something to break up the wall a bit.
  • Likewise, Development could probably be split up a little.
  • What's the story of Expedition like? If there's enough to say about the expansion, you can probably create a subsection for it.
  • "The two opposing Titanfall teams each have their own musical fingerprints" - Elaborate.

May come back with more later. Tezero (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That first sentence is there to signpost the rest of the section. I left the subsections out to keep it cleaner—I think it's more personal preference unless there's a readability argument. No info released on Expedition yet, but probably a subsection eventually. Rephrased "fingerprints"—I have one source I may use to expand that section. I likely won't be able to get to the other peer reviews due to life afk (and I do think you can only have one up at a time per the rules), but I appreciate the feedback czar  22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh, you're right about the review limit. Well, I hope they'll let that slide; to make up, I've been adding comments to other peer reviews. Tezero (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 14 April 2014, 01:34 UTC)----


Babe Ruth[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA and would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Doing...: will do in stages – it's a long article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton[edit]

first batch of comments
Lead
  • "Everyday player": perhaps the term has a specific meaning in baseball terminology. To British ears, unfortunately, it suggests run-of-the-mill, commonplace. I think the equivalent British term would be "all-round". I'm not asking that you change this, but be aware that it might be misunderstood by some British readers.
Tweaked. It is a baseball idiom.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Denied a job in baseball..." without explanation is a little mystifying. Perhaps add a few words of justification?
Early Years
  • Reads as if the relatives owned Frederick Street
  • "while at St. Mary's" – superfluous words
  • "As a baseball player, making a large salary, he would adjust the collars of his shirts himself, rather than having a tailor do it." Confusingly worded within this paragraph. Suggest something along th lines of "When he became a baseball player..."
  • There is a link, albeit to a poor-quality article, for Xaverian Brothers
  • "George rarely was visited by his family..." – shouldn't this be "Ruth rarely was visited..." etc? You have not previously called him "George"
Reader better eased into that usage.
  • Link catcher, shortstop
  • "During his time there he would also play third base and shortstop, again unusual for a left-hander, and forcing him to wear mitts and gloves made for righties." Reads slightly awkwardly; maybe lose the second comma. And "righties" is listed in the OED as "N. American - informal" I am also dubious about the encyclopedic nature of "bender" which occurs a few lines further down.
Since "left-hander" is used twice in succession, I think "right-hander" would feel repeated, and given the lack of synonyms … "bender" I think is justified. It sums it up and is instantly understandable.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well...slang by its nature is readily understandable, but in an encyclopedia the norm should surely be more formal language. "Righties" could be "right-handed players", "bender" could be "drinking spree". While I accept the need to use the jargon of the sport to a considerable extent, does that justification really apply here? Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have, somewhat reluctantly, deleted bender. I'm not sure right-handed players avoids the issue of repetition, and the dexter/sinister sort of synonyms seem out of place.
  • "Catholic" should be piped to Catholic Church
  • "He was generous to the school..." St Mary's presumably, but needs to be specified
Baltimore Orioles
  • The signing is dated in the text "early 1914", his first game being dated 7 March 1914, but the image, with Ruth in it fully kitted, is dated 1913.
The image is badly named. I'll look at the page. Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "How it came to be that Dunn signed Ruth" seems a bit wordy: "The circumstances of the signing..." etc?
  • "Others involve Brother Gilbert..." → "Other accounts involve Brother Gilbert..."
  • General: if you are looking to trim the wordcount, I think this paragraph could be a candidate for a cull. The details of the various accounts of Ruth's initial signing don't seem particularly contentious and are questionably worthy of inclusion in a summary encyclopedia article.
Issue with Brother Gilbert mooted by removing him from the article. Part of the reason or that, is I found another Brother GIlbert story on this, supposedly from the good friar himself. Dunn's signing of Ruth is a base that must be touched in this article, but I agree it is overdone.
  • "Although by late June the Orioles were in first place..." In first place in what?
In the league. That is an American sports idiom that it would be troublesome to fix, as it recurs in the article and avoiding its use would be difficult.
Developing star
  • "...the Cleveland Naps (as the Indians were still nicknamed)" – I don't see much point in introducing the nickname, which adds unnecessary confusion to the parenthetic note.
  • "Shore was given a start by Carrigan the next day, and won that and his second start and thereafter was pitched regularly. Ruth lost his second start, and was thereafter little-used." Three "ands" in the first sentence could do with some smoothing, as could the close repeat of "thereafter"
The repetition is is intentional as a contrast is being drawn between Shore and Ruth, so similar words are being used.
  • It's a little hard to understand why Ruth's taking batting practice should offend his team-mates to the extent of their destroying his equipment. Am I missing something?
Pitchers are usually not very capable batters, accordingly their taking batting practice might not be considered as essential as those who play other positions, and are expected to be capable with their bat if they expect to keep their jobs. A pitcher need not be more than minimally capable with the bat to keep his job, therefore Ruth taking up some of the limited opportunity to take batting practice might be resented by his teammates. It would be especially presumptuous as he was a rookie.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although Shore was initially the more effective pitcher, it is uncertain why Carrigan used Ruth so little." The answer to the question posed in the second part of the sentence seems to be provided by the first part.
First part of sentence deleted.
  • "...his departure for Providence was delayed when Cincinnati Reds owner Garry Herrmann claimed him off waivers".Even with the help of links I can't work out what that means.
It has to do with the circumstances under which a player may be transferred from a major league club to a minor league one. I think withe link it will have to stand.
  • "getting his first major league hit, a double." Explanation?
Linked.
  • Why did Ruth think he was a year older than he was?
It is explained in a footnote. Perhaps wise to delete that portion of the sentence.
  • "a 20 game winner" → "a 20-game winner"?
  • "Until another game of that length was played in 2005, this was the longest World Series game..." Unless the 2005 game was longer than 14 innings, the 1916 game is still the (joint) longest World series game.
I tried various alternatives, that I do not think would help. It is a very fine point and I am inclined to let it stand. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More soon Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Next bit
Developing star
  • "ERA" should be linked or explained at first mention in text
Emergence as a hitter
  • "The runner was caught stealing" – no doubt immediately understood by baseball followers, but otherwise mystifying. Who was "the runner", and what was he stealing?
  • Is there any known reason why Ruth wasn't conscripted? He was surely of military age?
That is explained in "Emergence as a hitter". The owners had contended that as baseball entertained the troops, the players should be exempt. When they were ruled against in 1918, they negotiated keeping the players out until the end of the season, which was shortened. After that, they had to either join the military or an essential war industry, as mentioned.
  • "Ruth's effort gave his team a 3–1 lead in games, and the Red Sox won the Series, their third in four years, two days later, four games to two." Too many commas. My suggested version: "Ruth's effort gave his team a 3–1 lead in games, and two days later the Red Sox won their third Series in four years, by four games to two."
  • "Before allowing the Cubs to score..." – is "allowing" the best verb here? It reads as though the Cubs needed his permission to score.
It is baseball lingo. Alternatives would be "surrendering" "permitting". All of the terms place responsibility on the pitcher.
  • "...in a ballpark where the distance to right field was 215 feet (66 m)." The implication is that this was a smaller field of play than usual, but can this be made more explicit?
Word "only" added.
  • "He broke it four days later..." → "He broke the record four days later"
  • "...the Red Sox finished sixth..." – one can only judge the merit of this by knowing how many teams there were in the league. For example, sixth out of six is a lot worse than, say, sixth out of 18.
I will add a footnote. Done down to here, will resume later.
Sale to New York
  • "Not all of the circumstances of how it was Frazee sold his best player to the Yankees are known..." A laborious construction. Possibly: "Not all the circumstances of Frazee's sale of his best player to the Yankees are known...", but personally I would cut down to "Not all the circumstances of the sale are known"
  • Pipe-link Prohibition
  • Link Polo Grounds
Linked in an earlier section.
  • Do we know what Ruth's personal salary was when he joined the Yankees?
Yes, I will add something.
  • "According to Marty Appel in his history of the Yankees, the sale of Ruth..." etc: it was of course the sale and purchase of Ruth that affected, repectively, the Red Sox and the Yankees. Or, perhaps, "the Ruth transaction"
I think "the transaction" is enough, there's no ambiguity.
New York Yankees 1920–23
  • "...a feat believed only to have been accomplished by Joe Jackson" – insert "previously" after "accomplished"
  • "Ruth hit his second home run on May 2, and by the end of the month had set a major league record for home runs in a month with 11, and promptly snapped it with 13 in June." Needs rwording to avoid two "ands". In normal parlance, records are broken rather than "snapped", which has a sportswriter feel about it.
  • "Frazee and Barrow quickly made a deal with Frazee..." chop last two words?
First Frazee should have been Ruppert. Changed.
  • I don't think it's encyclopedic to refer to Ruth as "The Babe"
  • "Ruth's appearance in the 1921 World Series also led to a problem and triggered another disciplinary action" – why not, simply: "Ruth's appearance in the 1921 World Series triggered another disciplinary action"?
Sentence cut, it is purely introductory and things are fine without it.

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Done to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
3 more sections
1924–1925
  • The repetition of "spring training" is unfortunately aligned in lines 2–3 of the second para.
  • Although you have a link to the "premature obituary", Ruth is not among those listed there. Maybe you should add a line there?
  • "had what would be his worst season" → "had his worst season"?
1926–1928
  • "The St. Louis Cardinals had won the National League with the lowest winning percentage for a pennant winner to that point (.578) and the Yankees were expected to win easily." Insert "the World Series" after "to win".
  • "deemed a defensive gem" – odd phrase, meaning not immediately clear: "deemed" by whom?
  • Re the Sylvester story: are we to understand that Ruth did not, in fact, hit the supposed promised home run?
I think the point is it was made a lot more dramatic than it was. I've inserted that he did not know the boy, thus he did not have as great emotional involvement than the version in the movie, where the Babe visits and gets all teary eyed, and then goes out and hits the home run and puts little Johnny on the road to recovery. He did not even remember who Johnny Sylvester was, soon after. It's a base that must be touched in the Ruth story.
  • I believe I've commented on the usage of "the Babe" before.
  • "as much as" unnecessary. Not clear at what point they led by 17 games
The source does not specifically say.
  • Who are "the A's"? I suppose the misplaced apostrophe is necessary, to avoid "the As", but is use of the nickname really necessary?
1929–1934
  • I don't think that Babe Ruth's called shot should be hatted as the main article for this whole section, which covers five years of Ruth's career. The link in the paragraph describing the incident is enough.
I think it is likely enough that someone looking at this part of the article is seeking info about this to be worth a "further information". It's the only Really Big Babe Ruth Legend to be in this section.
OK, but call it "Further information" rather than "Main article", which is a misnomer. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you explain "half a World Series share"?
  • "He hit the first home run in the game's history" – this should be clarified to "in the all-star game's history"
  • "Ruth hit only .288 with 22 home runs..." – statistics repeated from earlier in the paragraph.

I shall be missing for a couple of days, but expect to be back on Friday. I should complete the review then or on Saturday. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a useful time off. I'm up to date, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
My final pickings
Boston Braves (1935)
  • "Rumors cropped up" – a bit informal. Perhaps: "There were rumors that Ruth..." etc
  • "he was talked out of it by his wife, Claire" – this is the first mention of this lady; what happened to Helen?
  • "Under way" is two words in all my dictionaries (evolved from "under weigh").
  • "Ruppert had stated that he would not release Ruth to go to another team as a player". The words "go to" are redundant. Also, Ruth was obviously going to play for the Braves (as a gate attraction), so shouldn't this read " as a full-time player"?
  • "Hoopla" is an informal term (BritEng equivalent "hoo-ha"), and clear enough in meaning, but I think beyond the borders of encyclopedic use.
  • "five of New England's six governors" – link New England, and I suggest "six state governors" (you'd be surprised how many people over here assume that "New England" is a US state).
  • "His conditioning" → "His condition". Also "little more" and "little else" in close conjunction
  • "Ruth also found out that rather than give him a share of the profits..." I'd strengthen this to: "Ruth also found out that far from giving him a share of the profits..."
1935–1946
  • "Larry MacPhail made it clear when Ruth was hired that he would not be considered for the job if manager Burleigh Grimes retired at the end of the season as expected." Needs a slight tweak to clarify which job he wouldn't be considered for,. e.g.: "Larry MacPhail made it clear when Ruth was hired that he would not be considered for the manager's job if, as expected, Burleigh Grimes retired at the end of the season."
Cancer and death (1946–1948)
  • "His name and fame gave him access to experimental treatments, becoming one of the first cancer patients to receive both drugs and radiation treatment simultaneously." "Becoming..." is wrong here: "...and he was one of the first..." etc
Personal life
  • The information "Ruth met Helen Woodford, by some accounts, in a coffee shop in Boston where she was a waitress" has been given earlier in the article.
  • You should mention year of Claire's death, as you do for Helen and stepdaughter Dorothy.
  • I'm not sure that "Despite his marriages..." is the right way to introduce this anecdote, since we have little previous indication of the nature of these marriages, e.g. whether or not they were happy. "Despite" would make sense in the context "Despite his two happy marriages..." if that is the case, but otherwise it doesn't really work.
Memorial and museum
  • "Moved from old stadium to new were the tributes to Ruth housed in Monument Park, which remains in center field in the new ballpark, as it was in the old". I found the organisation of this sentence rather odd, and also hard to follow. I gather from the link that Monument Park was a museum in the old Yankee Stadium, and that the museum was re-established in the new stadium when it was opened. So I'd replace "remains" with "was re-established". From the monument's WP article: "When the Yankees moved to their new ballpark in 2009 a replica Monument Park was built beyond the center-field fences and the contents of the old transported over" – the whole contents of the museum, not just the tributes to Ruth, were moved from the old stadium to the new.
  • What does "the monument was in play" mean?
  • Close repetition of "is located" in first line of the second paragraph
Contemporary impact
  • Montville argues, Stout notes (both present); Creamer recorded, Wagenheim stated (both past). Is there a case for consistent use of the literary present? (later in the article we have "Montville noted)
  • "Ruth's penchant for hitting home runs altered how baseball is played." Seems like a "legacy" statement rather than contemporary impact
  • Ruth Cleveland has a WP article & can therfore be linked
  • Likewise, the most recent events concerning the "Baby Ruth" candy bar are hardly "contemporary impact". I'd say the whole para could easily be transferred to the legacy section.
Legacy
  • Is there any example of "Ruthian" having this meaning outside the baseball context?
  • "...fictions about Ruth, and in the case of the latter film, the impression that Ruth was overweight throughout his career, rather than just in the later part of it." Well, he did weigh 260lb in 1925, which is hardly "the latter part of his career".

Nothing to add. This is a most affecting article, and needs only minor polishing, in my view, to meet the FA criteria. I found it absorbing enough barely to notice the length. The only area which I think needs careful watching is the dividing line between what is acceptable in baseball reporting, and what is admissable within a formal encyclopedia article. I have highlighted a few instances which I think need to be looked at again, but there are no major concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


I'll chime in when I can as well. I've made a few minor changes in the References and External links sections for clean up. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
And I just fixed three dab links. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. THe more the merrier.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll be clocking in as well, but not till BB has finished. Shall watch this review page and report for duty after Brian has done the hard work. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 10 April 2014, 21:33 UTC)----


Wisp (Sonic)[edit]

This article passed GAN at the end of last month and I'm interested in taking it to the final step. I considered taking it straight to FAC after whatever quick comments WP:VG could offer, but @Sergecross73: pointed out that the subject has a particularly obscure role in gaming (Wisps are literally items from two Sonic the Hedgehog games and a single throwback-style level of a third one – to be clear, though, their notability is well-founded per copious third-party sources), and the article uses a table that could be seen as crufty, so I'd better overprepare as feedback could be particularly harsh from the get-go.

I tend to overly specify which kinds of comments I want most at peer reviews, which may stifle discussion of truly pressing issues, so I'll only say this: I would rather not scrap the table entirely, as numerous Wisps' names, abilities, and appearances are referenced elsewhere in the article such that full incorporation of this information into the text could bloat it or take the reader on too many tangents. With that said, there may well be ways to condense the table.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by CalvinK(talk): I have had a good read of this article and I had no knowledge of the subject matter. As you are looking to potentially take it to FA nomination, I have used the FA criteria to base my review. This should not be taken as a definite pass for FA once the issues have been corrected - the ladies and gentlemen at the FA review are much more experienced than I am.

Some things to think about are as follows:

  • "They debuted in the Wii/Nintendo DS game Sonic Colors in 2010, where Sonic can use them as power-ups while he rescues others from Doctor Eggman, who plans to use them for a mind control ray." To me this is a very difficult sentence and could do with being tidied up a bit. It might be worthwhile to break it into two longer sentences just to make it a bit clearer. Other than that, the lead paragraph is good.
  • That table. I appreciate what you're saying about it and at this time can not think of any way around it. I would certainly give a very brief few sentences in that section before the table, perhaps something along the lines of "there are x different types of Wisps".
  • Sources are good. Reception section is balanced.
  • Media is non-free but adequate rationale has been placed.
  • Stable article

It is an engaging read and I felt it was well written. I would say all you need to is tidy up that sentence in the lead, and do something about that table (at the very least add a sentence in that section!) and it should be OK at FA Nom.

Done and done. I hope I can count on your support, possibly after some further comments, at FAC when it happens, which should be soon. Tezero (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 April 2014, 21:24 UTC)----


Woman Seeking Dead Husband: Smokers Okay, No Pets[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this successfully through FAC as the first in what will hopefully be several featured articles in my Psych (season 1) topic. There is not too much to go on for this article. Only two major critics reviewed the episode, and there is not too much in the way of production information. However, this is probably the best article there could be with the provided info. My biggest concern is prose, since history has shown that I'm not the strongest writer. All comments appreciated.

Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 00:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 April 2014, 00:00 UTC)----


Big the Cat[edit]

A logical next step for my second-favorite purple cat from Sonic, as I'm considering taking Sonic characters to WP:FTC and that will require a few FAs. As of yesterday, Big seems to have found something green, if not his frog. I think he should get a gold star for his valiant efforts, so I've taken him here first. Of particular concern is the use of the second-tier gaming site Cheat Code Central as a source; it's an opinion piece by a decently established editor on the site, but I'd still like weighings-in on whether it seems reliable enough in context. I'd also particularly like input on whether some additional non-free image would be ideal, as this was suggested during GAN, and on the article's wording. As always, though, all comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury[edit]

General
  • I'm not concerned about the use of Cheat Code Central, personally (although that doesn't preclude someone calling it into question at FAC). It is an opinion peace, but you're using just to express the author's opinions. Looking at the site, they seem to have an editorial process in place which usually means fact-checking as well. It would help if you could produce any known reliable sources (like gaming sites or magazines) that refer to CCC as reliable or authoritative.
  • Check refs for dead links and put correct archive URLs in the citations using the archiveurl and archivedate parameters.
Lead
  • "and has made playable and non-playable appearances in other games" This doesn't fit well with the structure of the rest of the sentence; maybe it can be made into its own sentence? Also, do you mean other Sonic games only, or other games in general?
  • Is the character being derided by the fanbase sourced? I can only find that statement in "Big's reception by critics and fans alike has been strongly negative", which is sourced to an article that's a dead link for me. Making a sweeping statement about fanbase reaction will require more (and better) sourcing.
  • Fixed the dead link (God, and this one's used in a number of other articles) and removed the part about the fanbase. Tezero (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "His poor reception and apparent uselessness caused Sonic Team to remove him from any future games in 2012" This seems awkwardly written to me. How about: "Due to his poor reception and apparent uselessness, Sonic Team stopped including him in games in 2012"
Conception and creation
  • "Rumors persist that Big was created to capitalize on the Dreamcast's fishing peripheral" Careful with phrases like this that suggest currency. The source dates to 2011; do the rumors persist even today? How does the source discuss it, and how did the author know the rumors were "persisting"? Did Iizuka state as much in the interview? Do you read German fluently? If not, how did you translate the article? Google Translate is not very good at getting a properly nuanced translation for more than very basic facts.

Need to take a break because my internet service is dodgy at the moment, but will be back with more. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources
  • I'm concerned with the use of the Blistering Thumbs site as a source. Looking at the archive, there is not really any indication of any fact-checking or editorial process on the site, or any indication of how "Richard Coombs" is notable and why we should take his opinion seriously. As you saw, the site was taken town and folded into That Guy with the Glasses earlier this year. This is a critical problem because you have several citations to the Coombs article. As with the use of CCC, these will probably be challenged at FAC and you will need to produce reliable sources naming BT and CCC good sources of criticism.
Infobox
  • Nothing should be in the infobox that's not also written about and sourced in the article text. For example, the "voiced by" fields. You should write about those people in the appropriate headings and make sure to include sources. Those can be primary sources (like credits, instruction booklets, etc.)
Appearances
  • Seems generally well-written and complete; I didn't notice anything I would change in the writing. You did ask about non-free images, and I actually find it curious that you decided to include an image that doesn't actually depict Big. Rather than adding another image, I would considering replacing the current one with one that depicts Big in the midst of some key game-play.
Reception and impact
  • Looks well-written, and it seems that you gathered as many sources as are likely to be available.

I think that's it. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 28 March 2014, 22:59 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

Voyager 1[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its been a two time GAC and one FAC but failed. I am hoping to take the article to FA level.

Thanks, Herald 12:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Right - I would go for GA first as a stepping stone.
  • Make sure you've either done everything requested at the three reviews or given a good explanation as to why not done.
  • i.e. still some references are bare urls.
  • Per EL policy, any external link which doesn't add to the understanding of the topic over and above what the article can provide should be removed. (i.e. keep ones with videos or copyrighted content that we couldn't use and remove others)

(Peer review added on Sunday 23 March 2014, 12:51 UTC)----


Nanostim Leadless Pacemaker[edit]


Thanks, Laurakoehler (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Comments from EricEnfermero

I'm fairly new at PR but I am happy to leave a few comments.

  • Should the article be moved at some point to Nanostim leadless pacemaker? It seems this is reflected in the company's literature.
  • Per WP:LEAD, that section should summarize the body of the article. It shouldn't introduce significant facts omitted from the body.
  • Are there independent sources that could replace some of the uses of the company's product information?
  • I think that the article could benefit from some background on pacing before detailing the advantages of the Nanostim.
  • The Advantages section doesn't list that many advantages. Maybe it's just a matter of titling the section differently.
  • Check the article for redundant language such as "there still remains a considerable..." - WP:GOCE may be able to help.
  • I would also try to avoid subjective language like "remarkable" and "unique", except maybe in direct quotes.
  • "subjected to harsh environments and mechanical stress..." - not 100% clear on the harsh environments.
  • There is extraneous punctuation in the Advantages section. Again, a GOCE copyedit may help.
  • I would expect a History section to take a more chronological approach. I would start with the 1950s.
  • "feasibility of these pacing systems has shown to be successful" - feasibility and success are different concepts.
  • Because you talk about phases later, I would use a different term for the 1970 research.
  • By "initial technical difficulties with intracardiac pacing", do we just mean the need for leads? That sentence needs a reference.
  • How big is a traditional pacemaker? I'm assuming you mean the dimensions here.
  • "catheter-based delivery system originating from the femoral vein" - imprecise; originates in a factory, not from a vein. May help to make those two separate sentences.
  • Avoid the use of "currently" per WP:WTW; might use "as of" instead.
  • Two references to Phase II trials. Should the second one be Phase I?
  • I would like a little more specific information on risks of pacemakers and this device.
  • There is no mention that Nanostim was its own company until it was purchased by SJM.

Good luck with this entry. It's a pretty fascinating topic! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 17 March 2014, 19:44 UTC)----


Roku[edit]

Just did a split on the article. Really need advice on clean up.

Thanks, Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Too many sentences star with "On date x,..." -see my tweaks
  • I am not familiar with it and have no idea what it is at first read - it needs a description section of what it is before launching into the timeline.
  • Is there any review/feedback/criticism that can be added? Any models/upgrades that worked better or worse than expected?

Good luck...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 3 March 2014, 20:37 UTC)----


General[edit]

Trouble (Natalia Kills album)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been meaning to make it FA-class for a while now and I'd like that to happen eventually.

Thank you for reading and don't feel obligated to comment, however I would appreciate it a lot! Thank you! :) prism 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX
  • Don't need the "exec" bit in producers field of infobox
  • The info contained in the "background" section all belongs in the Perfectionist album page, not here. Find some info for this album if such a section is to be included.
  • In "development" section, there is no need to mention people's nationalities
  • In "artwork" section, just use ref#24 once at the end of the second paragraph per WP:OVERCITE
  • More WP:OVERCITE in "composition" section- after ref#31, just use ref#29 once at the end of the second paragraph
  • The Hall & Oates picture isn't really needed, if anything use someone who worked on any of the album's tracks
  • In "reception" section, I strongly recommend removing Huffington Post (ref#56)- they're known for fraudulence in things like politics, science, and medicine.
  • More WP:OVERCITE in "reception" section- ref#54 (AllMusic) should just be used at the end of the "rating of three and a half points out of five" bit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments from WikiRedactor
  • There are two external links that may need to be corrected, although if I'm not mistaken Amazon.com citations often have this "problem" even though the links go through smoothly. Long story short, it's probably not going to be an issue.
  • All of the pictures should include altnernate text.
  • I would link "studio album" in the introduction.
  • Since the "Background" section is kind of small, you could probably merge them into one paragraph and add it to the "Development" section, which I would suggest renaming "Background and development".
  • I would mention that the album credits are adapted from the liner notes of Trouble in the "Track listing" section, like how it is in the "Personnel" section.
  • You might be interested in moving the "Release history" references into a separate column, although that is purely a matter of personal preference.

The article is definitely in good condition, and is well on its way to becoming an FA! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 16 April 2014, 15:28 UTC)----


2013 Mudsummer Classic[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have intentions to nominate this page for GAN, and I can not seem to find anything else to add to improve this page.

Thanks, NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Royalbroil[edit]

  • LCQ wasn't spelled out as "last chance qualified"
  • I don't understand how NASCAR can classify Eldora as an intermediate track even though it's shorter that the Bristol short track. You've reliably sourced it so you should leave it.
  • "dirt track ringer" should be defined
  • (suggestion) I heard that Goodyear started with a dirt modified tire...You could research and attempt to substantiate
  • lots of references need wikilinks
  • How is the "Racing News Network" a reliable source? Same with Catchfence. SB Nation looks iffy in reliability depending on the writer. The rest are good.

Overall, very well done! It's looking good for a GA run. Royalbroil 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so here's what I attempted to accomplish today before hitting the hay for the night: ZappaOMati 04:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not too sure what you mean by that, but I presume you meant for put (LCQ) for "last change qualifier".
  • Already covered.
  • Replaced "ringer" with "specialist", since I assume most should know the latter's meaning much more than the former.
  • I'll check it out later.
  • I'll deal with that later
  • Replaced the Catchfence one with the Jayski team chart, which, although it doesn't focus on the topic particularly, it does still mention Joe as Jennifer's father. I took a look at the Racing News Network one, but I could not find another source with Tom Gideon (director of safety) stating the track is fine, instead finding a NASCAR spokesman and Smoke's assurances that the track is fine ([1]).
  • Catchfence reprints team press releases, so it's countable as a primary source - simple facts (such as the one that was cited here) can be cited using it, but not controversial ones. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, I'll just keep the Catchfence one in. Looking at the RNN one, meanwhile, it's written by Mark Aumann, a writer for NASCAR.com, and IIRC, this same ref was formerly on NASCAR.com, but I presume it was later transcluded onto RNN. Should the RNN ref stay? ZappaOMati 13:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The big purge they did of NASCAR.com's back content when they dumped Turner Sports was atrocious. If you're certain that it was an article that was originally on NASCAR.com, putting "archived from...(etc.)" in the reference should work, IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Luckily, I did manage to find it ([2]). ZappaOMati 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking better! If you want to keep the Mark Aumann article that's fine- but I'd mention it in the GA nomination that he wrote for nascar.com along with a link to prove that his writing has a history of proper vetting. Royalbroil 01:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 14 April 2014, 20:37 UTC)----


Demi Lovato[edit]

Previous peer review

Since this article has reached GA, I am looking for input before I nominate this for FA. My goal is to have this be the "Today's featured article" for her 22nd birthday this upcoming August 20th. Any input would be appreciated. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I regard the blog which is used to support the claim that she has a mezzo-soprano voice with a three-octave range as not reliable and unsuitable. Mind you, neither of these claims is particularly remarkable and I wonder whether the article would be better without it (and the corresponing category). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For now, I'll just go ahead and remove that bit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is just an advice and you don't have to do this. Make sure you have archive back ups for every url in the article. The WayBack Machine will usually already have an archive page, but some pages aren't accepted by the Wayback Machine. In those cases, you'd use WebCitation. The last thing you want to deal in a FAC is broken link which, from my experience, occurs a lot. Erick (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks should help with that, thank you for the pointer. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 14 April 2014, 15:57 UTC)----


WINC (AM)[edit]

This article was promoted to Good Article Status on April 10 and I am looking for a review of the article whole prior to taking the article to FAC. Advice is also welcome. Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 12:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Doing... Finetooth (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 12 April 2014, 12:28 UTC)----


E.T. (song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been promoted to a Good Article and I want to see how it can be further improved upon so that eventually it can be a Featured Article

Thanks, Giacobbe talk 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: while it would definitely not be appropriate for me to peer review, I will help along the way with getting this to FA :). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Pedro
  • First of all, let me just say congratulations to you both for the work you did on this article. Amazing, considering how it was a year ago. I'm very glad to see this input to this song (it is one of my favorite Katy songs ever) and I think it could be improved even more. See Party (song), for example. It has two versions available (just like this song). Both were released as singles (here it's a little different, "E.T." [original] was released as a promotional single, nonetheless important just like "Walking on Air"); and both have relevant commentary and reviews, which probably is the case with the original version. I think if we work a bit into this, we can make something out like "Party"'s article, and I would definitely work on it if you don't mind it. prism 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • One question: is there artwork available for the solo version? If so, that would make things easier. Also, I'm not sure how charts and such would be split. Thanks for the basis, though. There is also the Christina Aguilera remix of Do What U Want (though only takes up roughly 15% of the article rather than about half). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, there is. It was released in August 2010 exclusively to iTunes as a countdown single. The charts could be found by 2010 Billboard articles or by searching article history here (there must have been an article for it when it was first released). For Do What U Want there were some editors who thought an infobox was inappropriate for that case (which I don't really understand). Obviously the solo version of E.T. would take up a smaller portion of the article since it wasn't an international hit single (thus it didn't get much recognition worldwide, aside from the demo leaks etc.)... prism 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I wasn't necessarily saying to have an infobox for Do What U Want. What I meant was that there is a section specifically dedicated to that edition of the song. Then again, Hot n Cold (which I reviewed and passed for GA) has an infobox for the "Woe, Is Me" cover and that edition doesn't take up much of the article..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments from WikiRedactor
  • Interesting, I thought they had all been addressed when Zanimum passed the GAN..... though Yes check.svg Done
  • This actually never occurred to me before..... Yes check.svg Done
  • In "Music video", all three sections could probably be merged into one because none of them are large enough to need a courtesy break.
  • Perhaps, though I did this for if each subsection gets expanded
  • In "Release history", I would suggest merging the two tables into one table, since the first one only has one entry.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • In "Certifications", I think you should convert the existing two-column certifications into a three-column version (like "Roar").
  • Can't seem to configure this :/, Giacobbe could you perhaps perform this?
  • In "References", I recommend organizing the citations in columns of three instead of two as they currently are.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • In "External links", it might be helpful if the MetroLyrics link for the track was included.
  • I don't think it would hurt to include both, although if you have to pick one, I'd probably go with the regular album version. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is certainly in good shape, and is well on its way to becoming an FA! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: We could all work on User:Prism/E.T.! prism 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 April 2014, 18:33 UTC)----


I Need to Know (Marc Anthony song)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if can be improved further for a possible featured article nomination.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 April 2014, 06:58 UTC)----


Flood (They Might Be Giants album)[edit]

Hi! I'd really like someone with more experience than me to have a look at this article I've been working on. This is the first article of this length/thoroughness I've written for Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to move forward so I would appreciate any advice. Unfortunately, I can't get much more specific since this process isn't very familiar to me. One thing is, though, I'm not sure exactly which date format to use. I realized that my usual convention of dd-m-yyy for publication dates and yyyy-mm-dd for access dates might not actually follow MOS and I'm not sure whether I should be using an American convention or whether non-US is okay. My other concern is that, since I am fond of the band and the album, there could be lapses in NPOV, so any commentary on that would also help. I might want to nominate it for GA at some point, but that's another thing I know very little about, so any advice specifically toward that end would be great.

Thanks, ~ Boomur [] 23:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120:
Great album and the article is looking in decent shape too. I would probably look at splitting off 'Artwork' and 'Style and composition' into separate sections from the 'Recording and production' section (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide), and place 'Influence' after 'Critical reception' as it's more logical chronologically (I might also be tempted to rename 'Influence' as 'Legacy'). Regarding date formats, I'm British but I've always been of the opinion of using British date format for British articles ("9 April 2014") and American format for American articles ("April 9, 2014"). So I would choose either the "April 9, 2014" format or "2014-04-09" format, but keep it consistent throughout the references and don't mix the two (I prefer the first option myself, I think it looks tidier).
Regarding POV I don't think it's too bad: I think the pun on "flood" in the 'Influence' section may have to go, and to me the phrase "the quality of the album was augmented under the direction of..." in the lead section seems a little awkward.
Are you American or Canadian, or British? As is obvious from the chart performance section, the album and "Birdhouse in Your Soul" were sizeable hits in the UK. "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" also made the UK charts, and I'm damn sure the album would have gone at least gold in the UK. I'll try and edit the article accordingly when I find the information tomorrow. If the GA nomination can wait a few months, I'll be back in the UK over the summer and will be able get a proper reference for the Q review and to dig out reviews from the UK's other major music magazines of the time (NME, Melody Maker, Record Mirror and Sounds) which can then be added to the critical reception section. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Richard3120: thank you for your input! I've made preliminary attempts toward the changes you suggested, including changing "influence" to "legacy" (I think the latter clears up any confusion over whether the section refers to influences upon the album). I reorganized the sections somewhat, including merging style and composition, but I think that section might benefit from employing a subheading somewhere. I think I'm going to use the "April 9, 2014" format, as you suggested; even though I think 2014-04-09 is more logical, it's not as readable.
I am American, but the album came out before I was even born, so I don't have a great background for how it was received anywhere! I did find that "Istanbul" charted at #61 on the UK singles chart, according to TMBW. I'm guessing this is a reliable figure; however, obviously, other wikis are not RS. I think I remember that when I was writing the article, I couldn't find any online sources that listed weekly UK singles charts beyond the top 40. If you could add more info about UK charting and reception, or even just sources, that would be great. I'm in no rush to nominate for GA, in any case. Thanks for your comments! ~ Boomur [] 23:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you see, Flood came out during my first year at university, so I remember well just how much of a surprise hit "Birdhouse" was, reaching the UK top ten (I suspect that by now it's sold somewhere around a quarter of a million copies in the UK, which I'm sure few Americans, least of all the two Johns, can believe) – it's still fondly remembered and it gets played frequently on "oldies" radio stations. I've added citations for its position on the Irish charts and for "Istanbul" on the UK charts (both of these are "official" sources so they're Wikipedia approved), and also a certifications table: I was right, the album did go gold in the UK.
I should also mention that as far as I can tell, "Twisting" only ever came out as a single in the US, nowhere else in the world – perhaps you might want to mention this somewhere in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 7 April 2014, 23:48 UTC)----


Leonce and Lena[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i need help to improve this acrticle. please be nice and tell me anything.

Thanks, Nossoju (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gdirado[edit]

STRUCTURE

Lead section – The lead section is supposed to summarize the content of the article. As written now, it summarizes the history of the content of the play. All of this information is valuable, but should be moved to a section in the body of the article. I would suggest that you expand and properly cite this information in a Historical Context section.

Body – The body of the article is logically structured with helpful and appropriate headings and subheadings. I think that the article would be improved if you expanded the content of the some of the subheadings that currently appear quit short.

In-text links and "See Also" – This article includes many in-text links that are both useful and informative for readers. The Ponce de Leon link does not connect to an actual article, so you may want to correct this. As you add more content to the article, you should continue to be thorough with your links. This article currently does not have a “See Also section, so you might want to add one.

External links section – There is not currently an “External links” section, and I think the article would be improved if you added one. I would suggest finding websites that provide more historical context, or that link to information about productions of the play.

Images – The article contains an image that is relevant to the topic and follows Wikipedia guidelines. If you can find production stills or drawings, I think that might add to the quality of the article.

CONTENT AND SOURCES

Information – Last semester, Ssilvers told me the following regarding character sections: “The Theatre Project's article structure guidelines suggest that characters should be described, to the extent that they are important, in the Plot (sometimes called Synopsis) section, and so a separate character list section may not be needed.” Since this is the Wikipedia standard, I would suggest folding the “Character” section into the “Plot section.” I’m not sure what other sections you were planning on adding to the article, but like I said previously, I would suggest creating a “Historical context” section based on the content of the “Lead.” You might also consider creating a section that examines the themes of the play.

Sources – This is the section of the article that needs the most work. The entire lead section provides valuable information, but doesn’t include any citations. There is only one source included in the article, so your references section needs to be expanded to include multiple, reputable and scholarly sources.

Nice job so far Kyu! I look forward to seeing your work on the article! Gdirado (talk)

PEER REVIEW[edit]

Hello Kyu! Nice job on the article, you have giving it a head start from where it was. I would sugest the following:

The lead could use a bit more information on the author and on the when the play premiere.

The summary looks good, but it seems like a very fast plot break down, I would keep that because it gives a break down of what each scene is; but i would add a new section that is more cleary a plot summary and expand on what happens maybe by acts in general (intead of acts and scenes).

The character analisis is great! good job!

Maybe it needs a section on the themes of the play, and how the play represent the period in which it was written. Under what style does it fit?. You can probably do a section on that.

Also adding an area of performances of the play would be helpful.

Any other photos you good fine of a performance would be good, to give the reader a visual image of what this is.

Is looking good! Good job! --BorreroFortier (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note to reviewer: please do not use level 2 or level 3 subheadings, as they disrupt the {[WP:PR]] page. Level 4 is fine – I have adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 7 April 2014, 15:38 UTC)----


Slug (song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed three FA nominations for being too short and not comprehensive enough, despite the fact that shorter featured articles exist. Myself and other editors have done extensive research on sources for this topic and we all feel that the subject has been extensively covered and would like to see it pass an FA nomination.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As you're concerned with the length, I've listed some sources which could be used on the talk page of this PR. Not rich pickings, but there may be something of use there. They're all good, reputable publications, at least! J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the review. I looked at the four sources you posted - three of them are already cited in the article and the fourth one just mentions the song but doesn't really say anything about it that I could include in the article. Just to clarify, I personally have no issues with the article's length and feel it is fully comprehensive. However, in each of the three FA noms, editors have shot it down solely based on that reason. A user at WP:MUSIC recommended that I request a PR to help it become FA. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 7 April 2014, 02:52 UTC)----


George Greeley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need the review to improve my proficiency in creating articles.

Thanks, Cathlec (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 6 April 2014, 17:17 UTC)----


George Robey[edit]


The English music hall comedian George Robey was perhaps best known for his "Prime Minister of Mirth" character and his humour which mixed everyday situations and observations with comic absurdity. Robey's naturally big, black eyebrows, together with his use of clown-like make-up, wooden cane, black robes and small, bowler hat, formed the appearance of the Prime Minister of Mirth which he used to entertain audiences on both the national and international stage. He was envied by his colleagues for his ability to ad-lib and was adored by his country for his tireless fundraising which earned good causes in excess of £2 million during both world wars. For this, he was made a CBE and was later knighted shortly before his death in 1954. He was, according to his biographer Peter Cotes, "the finest entertainer of the English music hall tradition".

Together with the FA promotions of Dan Leno, Marie Lloyd and Little Tich, it would only seem right that I now bring the fourth biggest name in English music hall (IMO) to the FAC stage. The article has already benefitted from a thorough copyedit from Ssilvers and a mini review by SchroCat. At 83,000 bytes, I am keen not to extend the article any further and I would be most grateful if reviewers could keep that in mind when asking for elaboration on some of the information. I also welcome ideas on how to reduce, without it effecting the article in terms of quality. I would be most interested to see what others think and I would be happy to receive any comments and/or criticisms from any willing reviewers. Thanks, Cassiantotalk 15:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Great job, Cassianto. Another question for reviewers is whether anyone has any ideas for images that could be used in the lower third of the article (of course it is harder to find free images published after 1923). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ss. I think I have exhausted every possible avenue with having images in the lower half of the article, but have so far hit a huge copyright wall with every turn. If anyone does have any ideas for a way to get around this, then I would very much welcome them. I believe that the same copyright concerns would exist with sound files, but I would happily be proved wrong. Cassiantotalk 04:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Tons more to follow, but two preliminary thoughts before I get stuck in properly:

  • It would help the flow of your prose if you deleted "Robey" wherever it would be adequate to say "he", "him" or "his". For example: "In the early months of 1919, Robey completed a book of memoirs, My Rest Cure, which was published later that year. During the run of Joy Bells Robey was awarded the Legion of Honour for raising £14,000 for the French Red Cross. Robey declined a knighthood that same year because, according to Cotes, he was worried that the noble title would distance him from his working-class audiences, and instead he received the CBE from George V at Buckingham Palace. On the morning of the penultimate Joy Bells performance, Robey was invited to Stoll's London office where he was offered a role in a new revue at the Alhambra Theatre. On the journey, Robey met the theatre impresario Sir Alfred Butt, who agreed to pay the comedian £100 more, but out of loyalty to Stoll, he declined the offer and resumed his £600 a week contract at the Alhambra. On 28 July 1919, Robey took part in his second Royal Command Performance, at the London Coliseum. He and Loraine sang "If You Were the Only Girl (In the World)"." I reckon you should lose the second, third, fifth and sixth Robeys there. And so on.
    • I have blitzed the surname where I think it needs blitzing. I have an annoying tendency to do this. Please let me know if I have missed any. Cassiantotalk 18:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't know any editor who doesn't fall into this trap. I do it all the time. It's just easier to spot when someone else does it. I'll keep my eye open for it when doing my close reading tomorrow or Tues. Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Mondo ladro" – would you mind if I, whose favourite opera is Falstaff (not a word to Ssilvers) redrew this sentence and even expanded it a bit? Falstaff has been chucked in the Thames just before this, and his gloomy mutterings about the wicked world were utterly up Robey's street.
    • Please do. I know nothing of Falstaff so I would be only to pleased for you to elaborate where I have failed. Cassiantotalk 18:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Not a question of "failed", you maddening young person! It's just that I wanted to fine-tune it because it is so very close to my heart. Now done. Please check you're happy with my changes to the DID listing. Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Quite happy Tim, thank you! -- Cassiantotalk 22:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now. More later. I'm really looking forward to a close reading of this one. Tim riley (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

First lot of comments, down to the end of Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here

  • Lead
    • Leaving till last, more meo.
  • Early life
    • "he later claimed to have studied at the University of Cambridge" – I don't think this quite squares with your footnote, which says only that he played along with people's mistaken belief that he was at Cambridge.
      • Now consistent. Cotes mentions this on page 21. Cassiantotalk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • London debut
    • "Where Did You Get That Hat" – I think this should have a question mark at the end of the title. (I googled it and the first hit is someone called Stanley Holloway singing it.) You say "by J C Heffron", but I think that though he performed the song and made it a hit, it was written and composed by someone else. The British Library thinks it was by one James Rolmaz: see here; Wikipedia thinks it was by Joseph J. Sullivan (vaudeville). Heaven knows what the facts are, but either way it doesn't appear to have been Heffron's work. I think it might be prudent just to call it "the popular new comic song" or some such.
      • Cotes reckoned it was Heffron. Yes, I think being vague is probably best. Cassiantotalk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Robey negotiated with his co-star to sing one of the comic songs " – two points here: first, as Robey was merely the stooge, is it accurate to describe him as a co-star? And secondly, the wording makes it ambiguous about which of them was to sing it.
    • "where, according to Cotes" – this is the first mention of Cotes in the text, so I think we need something on the lines of "according to his biographer Peter Cotes..."
      • Now introduced. I seem to remember introducing him elsewhere, so I expect this to also come up :) Cassiantotalk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Music hall characterisations
    • "centred around" – some people (probably the same people who faint at the sight of a split infinitive) insist that "centred around" is a logical impossibility, and that the phrase must be "centred on". Best to indulge them, for a quiet life.
    • "Robey dressed in a top hat, frock coat and malacca cane" – one would have be very thin indeed to dress in a malacca cane
    • "The new garb set him apart" – this is the second "garb" in three paras. Once is all right, but it's not a word to scatter about, I feel. Perhaps "outfit" or similar this time?
    • "several, well-established" – I'm no expert on punctuation, but I don't think you want the comma here
  • Success in pantomime and the provinces
    • "image: Robey's make-up design" – this is a key image for the article, and I suggest you ask the image boffins to improve the contrast, which is pretty murky at the moment, not to mention the words dimly showing through from the other side of the page from which it was scanned. I've never approached them myself, but Crisco and Loeba have been hugely helpful to me in this regard, and you might like to consult one of them.
      • I may be able to do something, but I need some resolution to work with. Any higher resolution than 250px? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Alas, no. It's a clipping at 100% size by the look of it, from a newspaper. All things considered it's surprisingly good. If it's too low res to be improved, so be it, and thank you, Crisco, for looking in so quickly. Tim riley (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Crisco has very kindly had a go at improving them for me, but there has been little improvement. I will keep with the current one for the time being until that rare old beast – a beautifully photographed image which is desired AND PD comes along. Cassiantotalk 06:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "St Clement Danes church in the Strand" – probably best to add "London"
      • Removed the piped link. Cassiantotalk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Geography: Circus Road is really in St John's Wood rather than Swiss Cottage; on the other hand 83 Finchley Road is bang in the middle of Swiss Cottage, not Camden Town as your link has it.
      • Remedied. Circus Road was already linked to St John's Wood. Finchley Road is now Swiss Cottage. Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "at, amongst others, the Oxford Music Hall" – I always prefer "among" to "amongst", "amid" to "amidst" and "while" to "whilst"– shorter and less archaic
    • "for a fee of £120 per week" – "per" is fine with "annum", "cent" or other Latin word, but with the plain English "week" I'd go for "for a fee of £120 a week"
    • "only agreed on this" – I might rejig this as "agreed this only"
    • "Many's the squeeze she's had of my blue bag on washing day" – I bet you don't know what a blue bag was! They were still around when I was a little lad, and "can I have a squeeze of your blue bag?" was a catch-phrase of some comedian or other (clearly a Robey fan, I now realise).
      • I didn't know, no. It's surprising how many phrases come from the halls. Cassiantotalk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sporting interests
    • "Marylebone Cricket Club and remained an active player for them for many years" – this looks wrong to me: members of the MCC are the old buffers in the egg-and-tomato ties, whereas the players were the England cricket team. But I may be mistaken and I leave it to Sarastro or Brian B to comment authoritatively.
      • I'm ashamed to say that I know very little of cricket or the clubs who play it. Sarastro, I believe, will be along shortly. Have yet to ping Brian, but I will do shortly. Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Members of the MCC were entitled to play for the club whenever they wanted; the MCC played many low-level games against local teams, as well as top-level matches where they were effectively the England team. So there's no problem here. Maybe say that he played in minor games to avoid any confusion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I have added the minor matches into this. Cheers. Cassiantotalk 06:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
            • However, this page is from an ultra-reliable cricket site. It gives some of his games for the MCC, but it contradicts the article somewhat. We say that he was introduced to cricket in 1903, but CrickerArchive has him playing in 1895, with his own team, no less. So his interest must pre-date 1903 to some extent. (I realise this is a very, very minor point in the context of Robey's career, but the cricket pedant in me felt the need to point it out!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
              • We have a battle of the sources here. Cotes, as far as I can see, makes no mention of the 1890s being the decade in which Robey played cricket. I will check Wilson and report back, but if nothing, then I'm happy to use the source you provided above. Cassiantotalk 06:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Now remedied using the source you provided. Contradiction has also vanished. I have also uploaded and added a Robey/MCC image. Cassiantotalk 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "complimentary of" – about?
    • "right-handed bowler" – I don't think our cricket experts will like that phrase much ("right-arm" bowler is usual) but as it's in a quotation it will have to stand
      • Apologies in advance. I have amended the ref to show the culprit. Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Not that big a problem actually. It's a bit archaic, but there was nothing wrong with "right-hand" or "left-hand" bowler (e.g. "slow left-hand"), in the same way that we now say "right-hand bat".
    • "The match raised significant proceeds" – what did they signify? You mean substantial or considerable, I think.
      • Of course, now changed. Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oswald Stoll
    • "to which his biographer Peter Cotes attributes" – too late to give Cotes his job description here, particularly if, as suggested, you give it in the London debut section earlier.
      • This was what I mentioned earlier. Fixed. Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The chronology has gone off the rails in the first para. In 1912 George V was king (not prince). His father, Edward VII died in 1910. When the latter pops up later in the para it is rather confusing. I think you need to recast this para so that the private show for King Edward comes before the Command Performance for King George.
    • "Lord Lonsdale and Carlton House Terrace" – well, I'm blest! I worked in that very building (13–16 Carlton House Terrace) in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s. If I'd known Robey had performed there I might have enlivened some of the duller meetings with the odd burst of one of his songs.
      • Haha, that would have gone down very well! Looking at who occupied the offices in Carlton House Terrace and comparing them with Robey's songs, I'm sure "A Dear Kind Doctor" could have been sung at No.2 or I'm Dotty" at No. 5 :) Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "organizing performances" – but you use "–ising" endings elsewhere in the text
      • I blame my spell checker. Fixed. Cassiantotalk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Robey was fond of the Merchant Navy" – to the pure all things are pure, but I can't help seeing a Hello Sailor joke in that phrasing. Perhaps "Robey was a strong supporter of..."?
  • Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here
    • "First three sentences need a citation between them
      • Sorry, I'm being thick. What do you mean? Repeat the ref which is given after the fourth sentence? Cassiantotalk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Apols: it's not you but me being thick. I hadn't clocked that the ref after the fourth sentence covered the three previous ones. Tim riley (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Robey met with film makers" – this is good AmEng, but in BrEng one meets with abstract things like success or disaster, but just meets people.
    • "Theatrical historians blamed" – past tense wanted here?

More soon. I'm enjoying this every bit as much as I expected. Absorbing stuff, and highly enjoyable. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am most grateful thus far, thanks Tim! Cassiantotalk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Round two, to the end of Shakespearian roles
  • Zig-Zag to Joy Bells
    • "The Prehistoric Man", with Daphne Pollard playing the role of "She of the Tireless Tongue" – he clearly stole this from Hengist and Senna Pod in Carry on Cleo.
      • ha, thats nothing; the other character was called "He with the Nobbly Knees".
    • "secured the box at the Savoy Theatre" – "a box", rather than "the box" in 1917. There was, I'm pretty sure, only one box after Rupert D'Oyly Carte rebuilt the theatre in the 20s, but the original Victorian theatre had lots of boxes.
    • "that the noble title" – blitz "noble". Knights ain't noblemen.
    • "and instead, received" – another comma I'd lose (but what do I know?)
      • Nothing apparently, like us all! Cassiantotalk 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "who agreed to pay the comedian" – agreed to pay him?
  • Films and revues of the early 1920s
    • "did not know how to correctly apply" – stronger without the adverb, I'd say
      • I only added this the other day. Now swapped back. Cassiantotalk 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "By 1920 variety theatre" – unexpected blue link here
    • "often hired the comedian" – "often hired him"?
    • "at London's Alhambra Theatre" – we've had the Alhambra mentioned several times already, so perhaps "London's" is not needed here
    • "before tossing the seeds" – when did you last eat a cherry? They have stones, not seeds.
    • "in aid of both" – I might lose the "both"
    • "at the Cromer Pier theatre where he was supported by the Beecham Opera Company" – Speaking as Sir Thomas Beecham's vicar on Wikipedia I have sprained my brain trying to imagine this. It seems highly implausible and I'd like to know exactly what your source says – every word of it, if you please, on this page or by email if you don't want to clog the review up.
      • I will mail you. Cassiantotalk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Press cutting received. I'd mention all or else none of the supporting acts. I think all would add a nice flavour. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Deleted altogether. Cassiantotalk 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Was this just a one-night concert? If so, I agree with the deletion. Just checking. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Yes it was just for a night. This was a very minor, one off show for the summer season with little in critical commentary, hence my deletion of the whole sentence. Cassiantotalk 22:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Cardus quote box – excellent!
  • Marriage breakdown and foreign tours
    • "That year, Robey separated from his wife Ethel owing to the amount of time he was spending away from home working" – this doesn't read well, to my mind. May I suggest something like "The amount of time he spent working away from home led to the breakdown of his marriage, and he separated from Ethel in 1923." I'd then remove "As a result" from the next sentence.
      • You may, I have and I have. Cassiantotalk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "and was written intentionally" – I'd drop "intentionally"
    • "a company of 25 artists, many engineers and support staff" – not clear if the 25 include the engineers and support staff or if they're on top of the 25
      • Added "as well as" to separate the figure. Cassiantotalk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Capetown" – Two words, I think
    • "Don Quixote" – if the man playing Quixote was anyone we have heard of I think you should mention his name
  • Venture into legitimate theatre
    • Why, may I ask, have you not linked to the short but serviceable article on W H Berry by the admirable Tim riley with contributions from the incomparable Ssilvers and someone describing himself as Cassianto?
      • Good grief! I shall link right away. How could I do such a great disservice to one of Wikipedia's greatest and most respected editors! It's also not fair on Ssilvers or Tim either! Cassiantotalk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I laughed aloud at that! I think you win this exchange. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Points to Cassianto! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Critic Harold Conway" – you know my loathing for this journalese/US construction. Let's have a definite article, if you please.
      • Changed, goodness knows how that slipped in. Cassiantotalk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Robey's refusal to join the actors' union Equity" – was he a member of the variety artists' union (the VAF, I think it was called), or was he a refusenik for all unions?
      • No mention of any unions I'm afraid. Cassiantotalk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "when the comedian was included" – when he was included?
    • "A substantial donation was made by Robey to the union" – perhaps go for the active rather than the passive: "Robey made a substantial donation to the union"
    • Done. Cassiantotalk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Shakespearian roles
    • I was going to ask for mention of other cast members, but I see from the Times archive that in Henry IV pt 1 the only big name apart from Robey was Lady Tree as Mistress Quickly. (John Laurie later of Dad's Army had a small role, but that's not notable here.) You might, perhaps, quote a sentence or two of Robey's reviews for his Falstaff. I'm sure you've got access to The Times; I can rummage in The Manchester Guardian and Observer if wanted.
      • If you could, that would be wonderful! John Laurie was a very underestimated actor and it is surprising to see how many distinguished plays he appeared in! Cassiantotalk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Will rummage and send you any relevant cuttings by email. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "The comedian Richard Hearne" – Mr Pastry was one of the greatest comic treats of my childhood (see him dancing the Lancers with a whole ballroom of imaginary people) but I can't honestly think he is so famous that mention of him is warranted here. I doubt that any reader not in possession of a Freedom Pass will have heard of him. Tim riley (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now, except to report a vague feeling that from the text as it stands a reader new to the subject might not quite get the distinction between music hall and variety. (Indeed, I'm not quite certain I know it myself.) Pray ponder. Having carped at you for line after line, let me say what a treat I'm having reviewing this! A delight. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree. Can you give a sense of Robey's variety career? Was it all provincial tours? How much time did he spend doing variety shows, or can you give some other description of his variety career, and how it was different from his (earlier?) music hall career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I will have to have a more thorough look at this. Not all of his variety shows were limited to the provinces, he appeared in London and internationally with them as well. They differed from his MH routines inasmuch that they relied on some sort of organisation and scripting, where as his MH were frequently impromptu and their sketches or monologues were often picked at the last minute. Cassiantotalk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Last lot from Tim
  • Radio and television debut
    • "over his fifty-year membership" – of Middlesex or Surrey, and was he really a member at age 16 (if my arithmetic is correct)?
      • This is what Wilson says. "In another talk he congenially discoursed on cricket, told about the players he had met in his youth when he regularly visited the Oval, and of the famous characters he knew at Lord's during his fifty years' membership." (Wilson, p. 159)
        • Fair enough, I think. From the quote it's clear he was a member at Lords – of the Middlesex County club, presumably. The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), also based at Lord's, was the elite and exclusive mafia that ran cricket in those days, but he wouldn't have got a sniff of membership of the MCC as a teenager. You might ask one of our two cricket sages to run an eye over this, as I don't really know what I'm talking about. Tim riley (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I believe Sarastro is popping along in the next few days.
            • That sounds wrong. Unless his dad was a member of the MCC, he would not have got in that quickly as there is/was an infamous waiting list for membership, and it was very, very exclusive. Especially in that period. It is ambiguous about which club he is talking: the Oval was less exclusive (and incidentally, the Oval and Lord's "crowd" hated each other with a passion) so maybe he was a member there. But it sounds like an exaggeration. Fifty-year association would be more plausible. (And I'm not sure whether Middlesex had any members as such, or if it was just the MCC at Lord's. It's not really important for the article, but I could probably check easily enough if it matters.) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
              • It now appears that Cotes also acknowledges Robey's membership of the MCC (he was elected in 1905 apparently). Cardus gives an anecdote and remembers Robey on the field at Lord's in 1921. Cotes quotes: "His strongest tie with cricket was his membership of the MCC; elected in 1905, he remained a member to the end of his life." Cassiantotalk 18:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Not sure this helps, but this cigarette card from 1906 shows he played for them. The card shows the reverse, which states he is actually a member. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The Sydney Morning Herald – you have misquoted the paper, which doesn't mention "fun". It's not a very illuminating quote in any case, it seems to me.
      • Agree. I have deleted it. Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "with his divorce from Ethel finalised" – fifteen years after he walked out on her. Do we know why it took so long to complete the divorce?
      • He never spoke of the reasons as to why he split from Ethel, nor why he omitted to get a divorce. Blanche was even kept in the dark about it. Sure, Cotes offers his conspiracies, but none are tangible enough to include in my opinion. Divorce, I believe, was a sin back then and it was better to be Mrs George Robey than Mrs Nobody I suppose. Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Critic Harold Conway" – another missing "the"
  • Legacy
    • "of the Sir Henry Irving statue" – there are more than one, but this assuredly refers to the one outside the National Portrait Gallery. Worth mentioning, if so?
      • Yes, that one. Now given. Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • A passing observation: Gielgud was a huge fan of Robey: "who paused as he surveyed the audience and had them roaring with laughter before he uttered a word". JG drew on Robey's technique when confronted with a tricky comic role in André Obey's play Noah.
      • Interesting. Is this worth giving here? Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Refs to hand if you want to include it, but I'd say not. A bit peripheral to your subject. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • "which formed a basis for his humour" – not sure these seven words add much.
    • "Aside from his music hall acts" – I think of "Aside from" as an Americanism; to my mind "Apart from" is the English idiom.
      • Opted for "As well as..."
        • I don't think "as well as" worked, so I changed it to Tim's phrase, which I think is clear, even to those in the New World. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "a series of menial jobs" – I don't know that I'd decribe working in a civil engineer's office as "menial". Perhaps "routine" or "humdrum"? Afterthought: for many years the Yellow Pages had the splendid entry "Boring–see Civil engineers". Now removed, alas.
      • I went for "routine". Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I think "routine" is too vague. I changed it to "office jobs". But was it really "a series" of them? How about "some" or "a few"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "the on-stage assistant to an established comedian" – I wondered why not just "straight man"?
    • "for the 1944 film of the same subject" – not quite. The film was of Henry V. Better to say "a role he later repeated in Laurence Olivier's 1944 film of Henry V."
    • "During the Second World War … for which he received the CBE" – but you tell us later that he got his CBE twenty years before the Second World War.

That's all I have to offer. This is a fine article, and how nice to read a biography of a music hall star who had a long and, it seems, generally happy life! – Tim riley (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed that review Tim, thank you very much! Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I went over chunk of this when it was still being written, but much has changed since then. I've made a few minor tweaks here and there (where it's easier to do, rather than say): feel free to revert or tweak any of them (apart from the change from an errant US spelling that had wondered in).

Early life

  • "His father Charles Wade[6] was a civil engineer who spent much of his career on tramline design and construction": Commas seem to be in the spotlight elsewhere at the moment, but I think Charles's name could be dropped into a sub clause by the judicious placement of two of the little beggars here. (I wait with baited breath for TR to tell me it's unnecessary...)
    • Adopted unless I hear different. Cassiantotalk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Bloody hell! The bogeyman looking in here. Yes, commas are wanted, unless he had two or more fathers. More realistically, if we were talking of siblings, you'd write "his sister Susan" if he had several sisters and "his sister, Susan," if she was the only one. The difference between a describing ("non-restrictive") clause and a defining ("restrictive") one. But as the bogeyman needs to eat someone, who is it who has baited rather than bated breath? Oh, all right, I'm sorry! Tim riley (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ditto Ma Robey (I see you've followed the comma-name-comma pattern on the third family member, Uncle George)
  • "the family moved back to London near the border between Camberwell and Peckham": slightly pedantic, but I'm not sure Camberwell and Peckham were actually part of London at the time... It may be best leaving as is, but someone may pick up on it at some point
    • How about deleting London and leaving "border between Camberwell and Peckham"? Strictly speaking, Cotes doesn't say London, only Camberwell and Peckham? Cassiantotalk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd leave in London, or "the London area", as all your readers will understand the general location without clicking away from the article. Unless it is jarring, I'd stick with just London. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "part of their ordinary daily lives": I'd be tempted to leave out "ordinary": some may have had quite extra-ordinary lives, and "part of their daily lives" seems to cover the point well enough.
  • "He later claimed to have studied at the University of Cambridge,[9][n 3]" Is there more to follow here, or should the comma be a full stop?

London debut

  • "returned to South London": I'm always getting the capitalisation mixed up with this, but is it "South London", or "south London"?
    • I think South London. Can anyone shed some light on this? Cassiantotalk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Not cocksure about this, but I think South London is widely enough taken to be a geographical name rather than a geographical description that caps are appropriate. Perfectly prepared to be told I'm talking round objects. Tim riley (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • As the holder of an English degree from a prestigious university, I can confidently say that I don't care. Also, it ain't broke - see South London. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Done down to the end of London debut: more to follow in this fascinating and excellent article. – SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Success in pantomime and the provinces

  • "his position at the top of every theatrical bill": what, every bill? Even the ones he wasn't in? I'm being slightly facetious, but do you see wheat I mean?
  • "However, Robey disputed": the "however" will be a red flag to some at FLC, especially at the beginning of the sentence.

Sporting interests

  • The para beginning "By 1903" confuses me slightly. We start with Vigoro/cricket then into Millwall, then into the MCC and cricket. Perhaps starting with Millwall, then into Vigoro, moving into cricket and the MCC?

Stoll

  • "Prince George V"? Either George, Prince of Wales or King George V, depending on the year.

Done to the end of Stoll: sorry it's a bit piecemeal, but a stack of new cases in over the last day or so has squashed my free time somewhat. More to come asap. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Another batch for you: sorry about the delay in getting back to this, an outbreak of rather depressing silliness delayed me somewhat. Anyhow, on with the show...

Lovely, thanks. Not a problem at all. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Marriage breakdown and foreign tours

  • "In early 1929, Robey returned to South Africa and then Canada for another tour with Bits and Pieces. He then started another series of English variety dates." These two short sentences could move together quite happily (and lose the "then…then" repetition. Perhaps "In early 1929 Robey returned to South Africa and then Canada for another tour with Bits and Pieces, after which he started another series of English variety dates."?

Second World War

  • "he appeared in various types of shows": should that be "various types of show" (singular)?
    • Done Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Hold on thar. If this is correct Brit. grammar, I am appalled and suggest a rewrite of the sentence. I've put it back to "types of shows" for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "He was unspecific in his choice of venues": I'm not sure "specific" is the right word, but my brain isn't working well enough to think of a substitute.
    • I agree. I have reworked the whole sentence. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a bit thin around the late 1940s: is there a similar gap in the source material over these dates?
Unfortunately, both sources are scarce on information from 1947 (ish) to the early 50s. This, I'm sad to say, is a ramification of that. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline in health

  • "Poplar in east London" Poor east London: only granted lower case status when South London gets all la-di-da with its capitalisation!
    • East of the river is just as good (if not better) ;). changed. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "he starred as Clown in a short pantomime": is Clown the character's name? Fine if it is, but the definite article needed if only a descriptor
    • The character was called Clown. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

  • "charming, gracious [and] one of the few really great ones of [the music hall era]."[198] Perhaps a slight tweak to shorten the quote and remove the second set of brackets: "charming, gracious [and] one of the few really great ones" of the music hall era.[198] Your call either way.

FNs

  • You may want to check the formatting here and there, as some of the italicisation has gone a little awry: compare 150 and 152 157 and 159, for example.
    • I need to go through both these and the references. Be assured this will be fixed! Thanks so much for looking in. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Very minor quibbles in all, and feel free to adopt or ignore at your discretion! An excellent article and I await its appearance at FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Sorry for the delay, this week was slightly more chaotic than I expected.

No problem at all, thanks for popping by! Cassiantotalk 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead:

  • "and musical theatre actor": Far from a major issue, but I wonder if "an actor in musical theatre" may be less abrupt?
  • "he made his debut on the London stage when he was 21 at the Royal Aquarium, where he was the on-stage assistant to an established comedian": Again, not major, but would "he made his debut on the London stage, aged 21, at the Royal Aquarium as the on-stage assistant to an established comedian". But may not be an improvement.
    • Much the same really, I'll stick if that's ok? Cassiantotalk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "a mainstay of the popular Christmas pantomime scene": Is this popular in the sense that everyone liked it, or popular in the sense that it was looked down upon by superior types?
    • The former. Pantomime was huge in the Victorian times. Cassiantotalk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "and secured many private bookings for royalty": Reads as if he made the bookings for the royalty to star in! Maybe "appearing before royalty"?
  • "In 1914 he debuted in film when he appeared in the comedy short George Robey Turns Anarchist, but he had only modest success in the medium": Maybe a "he" or two too many here?
  • "his first legitimate theatre role": Slightly condescending editorial voice here!!! Can we rephrase to avoid "legitimate" (does this make pantomime illegitimate? I'd agree wholeheartedly there!)
    • legitimate →straight. Cassiantotalk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Both "legitimate" and "straight" are ambiguous, as both are often used to mean "not a musical theatre show". But this was a musical (an operetta, in fact). To be clear, how about saying: "first theatre role other than in a revue or pantomime". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the lead lacking a little summary of why he was so important? There looks to be a few things in the legacy section which could go here.
    • Its where to put it! He had such a full life, that it was a complete mission to get all the pertinent information covered in the four paragraphs. I can have a go in a sandbox somewhere. Cassiantotalk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I just made some edits in the first paragraph along these lines. See if you like them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Early life:

  • "and its tree lined pavements were flanked by large, well-kept houses." This seems a little over-described here.
    • Removed, given the articles already excessive length. Cassiantotalk 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • " Robey's parents both died during the First World War; his father of a heart attack and his mother as a result of an injury she had sustained during an air raid": Were the two deaths connected?
  • Is there a way to cut a few of the "Robey"s in the first paragraph?
  • "In the later months of 1880, the Wade family moved to Germany": Why?
    • Wade moved for work reasons. Now explained. Cassiantotalk 16:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "He enjoyed life in Germany and was impressed with the many operatic productions held in the city and the way the locals treated the arts as an integral part of their daily lives": A few too many ands in this sentence.
    • Deleted the last part of this sentence as it was a bit redundant. Cassiantotalk 13:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "When he was 14, Robey moved in with a clergyman's family in the German countryside": Why?
    • Explained in the next sentence. Cassiantotalk 13:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The note on his supposed attendance at Cambridge is a little confusing. Where did the claim come from? The text suggests that it was Robeys's claim, but the note suggests that he played on the "supposition" that he did so. It can't really be both. And did he really convince anyone?
    • According to Cotes, Robey himself claimed to have studied there. This set the ball rolling and the likes of Max Beerbohm carried on the rumour, long after Robey had abandoned it. Rather than correct them, he let them keep the rumour alive as I suppose it's better to have "studied" at Cambridge than any lesser university! I have tweaked it a little. Cassiantotalk 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Up to the end of "Music hall characterisations" so far. A good read! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Success in pantomime and the provinces

  • " had signed the comedian on a £25-a-week, three-month contract": Without using any of those godawful inflation templates, or measuring worth, or anything like that, could we give a vague indication about how much this was? Perhaps how it compared to other stars at the time?
    • Now added. Cecilia Loftus was paid £80 a week that year, so it appears he was well on his way to commanding the same figures. Cassiantotalk 18:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Unless one of the sources mentions Loftus's salary (or compares his with anyone), this is open to the accusation of WP:OR at FAC. But, I have no objection if you want to wait until someone objects (if ever). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sporting interests

  • "Robey was asked by the English cricketer Harry Wrathall to take part in a charity match at the Yorkshire County Cricket Club. Robey played so well that Wrathall asked him to return the following weekend": As written, it looks at first glance like he was playing cricket; I think we need to specify that he was playing football.
  • "By 1903, Robey was a semi-professional player and was signed as an inside forward by the Millwall Football Club and scored many goals for the club at national level.": And...and...and. Also, I'm not too sure about "at national level" here. Could we be more precise at what level he was playing? First division? Second division? Friendly games?
  • I think you saw my comments on the cricket in the sections above.
    • I did. Responses given above. Cassiantotalk 06:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Now down to the end of "Oswald Stoll". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here:

  • "The show's casting was controversial with critics": To disregard your request to not ask for elaboration (!), why was this?
    • "Controversial" was the wrong word, so I have used "doubt" instead. I have also added a ref which I had originally missed. Cassiantotalk 20:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Whoa! It can't be what you wrote, Mr. C. I understood this to mean that the critics expected ROBEY to play the dame and were surprised. Assuming that's what you meant, I have changed it to: "Although the critics were surprised by the casting, it appealed to audiences..." If that's not what you meant, let's try again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • That was what I meant. I thought "controversial" was wrong to use here as it wasn't; more of a disappointment or a "hmmm, I'm not sure about this casting". Cassiantotalk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Another film followed in 1916 called The Anti-frivolity League,[75] followed the next year by another film, Doing His Bit.": Film...film

Zig-Zag to Joy Bells:

  • "The Italian writer Emilio Cecchi gave Robey a glowing review...": If you are interested in trimming, I'm not sure that this quote adds much to the sum of our knowledge.
    • Deleted. Cassiantotalk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry to disagree, but without this review, the reader has no idea of the reception of this major role in Robey's career. Possibly the quote could be removed or streamlined, but IMO the fact the Cecchi gave it a glowing review should stay. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • As per my edit summary, I have restored this. I agree that this helps and deliberated over deleting it for some time. Cassiantotalk 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is coming quite slowly, but I'm up to the end of the Zig-zag section now. On the subject of length, I'm always writing articles which are too long. There may be a few parts here and there which could safely be trimmed if you are wanting to reduce the length; personally, I think you are just about OK at the moment. I tend to take the optimal length to be around 8,000 words and try to trim to that sort of length. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I'm finding the breaks a big help in keeping in top of things, cheers! Cassiantotalk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Films and revues of the early 1920s:

  • "George Robey's Day Off (1919) showed the comedian acting out his daily domestic routines to comic effect,[90] but the picture failed at the box office. The British film maker John Baxter concluded that film producers did not know how best to apply Robey's stage talents to film.": Too many "films"! I would also suggest rewording as "George Robey's Day Off (1919) showed the comedian acting out his daily domestic routines to comic effect,[90] but failed at the box office". And (maybe Mr Riley can help here) is it box-office?
  • "Robey admitted that he had difficulty in differentiating between the business of film and variety theatre, with the former providing little room for his customary improvisational humour.": If trimming is required, this could go as it makes essentially the same point that Baxter did in the previous sentence.
  • "A sign that his popularity was continuing to increase came in August 1920 when he was depicted in scouting costume for a series of 12 Royal Mail stamps in aid of the Printers Pension Corporation War Orphans and the Prince of Wales Boy Scout Funds.": Maybe just "A sign of his increasing popularity ..."?

Marriage breakdown:

  • "Robey, however, resented having to grow a beard for the role and despised the foreign climate": We state the location as being in France in the note, but not in the main body. That makes the work of the reader a little harder.

Venture into legitimate theatre:

  • "although he had frequently read Shakespeare from an early age.": Redundancy?
  • ""integrate himself with the other stars, ... to learn many pages of dialogue, and to remember countless cues."": Why the comma when we are using an ellipsis?

Down to the end of the legitimate theatre section now. Part of me wonders if some of the lists of roles and locations could be trimmed a little? Not a huge problem at all, but I sometimes find these a little wearing in the biographies of performers. But it's not really detracting so far, as we are kept entertained by various tales and anecdotes, but it is worth considering if you are still worried over length. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This is a good point. In general, I would mention a role if it was from an important production for Robey, but I would not mention the name of a theatre, especially a provincial theatre, unless it was a really significant venue or particularly significant to Robey's career (I would just mention the city). So, along these lines, do we need: "Paragon Theatre of Varieties", Brighton's "Alhambra Theatre", Manchester's "Comedy Theatre", Birmingham's "Palace Theatre", Vancouver's "Empress Theatre", Woolwich's "Royal Artillery Theatre", Bristol's "Hippodrome Theatre", Burnley's "Palace Theatre", Sheffield's "Empire Theatre"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, I think I caught them all. Cassiantotalk 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Shakespearean roles:

  • "At the start of 1935 Robey accepted his first Shakespearian role, as Falstaff in Henry IV, Part I, which caused much surprise in the press and some worry by his variety fans that he might retire the Prime Minister of Mirth.": Why not just "surprise"? And should it be "worry from his fans"?

Radio and television debut:

  • "The popular interview brought Robey over a thousand letters from listeners": "Popular interview" could be interpreted in a few ways, so maybe "the well-received interview"? And the interview didn't bring him anything, so what about "as a result of the interview..."?
    • Dropped "popular" and I have omitted to use "well-received" as I couldn't think of an alternative to use instead of "...receive letters". Cassiantotalk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The press were warmly impressed": Not keen on the adverb here.
  • In the quote following on from "The press were warmly impressed...", there is a full stop followed by an ellipsis.
    • Caught and deleted. Cassiantotalk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I believe that the full stop - space - ellipses is correct, to indicate that the omitted material includes the end of a sentence. I see that it does not specifically so state in WP:ELLIPSES, but I am sure that the punctuation mavens do it this way at FAC. Does anyone know differently? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "In the later months of 1936, Robey repeated his radio success with a thirty-minute programme entitled "Music-Hall", which he recorded especially for American audiences, to honour the tenth birthday celebrations of the National Broadcasting Corporation.": Redundancy?
  • "he had met on his frequent visits to the Oval and Lord's cricket grounds over his fifty-year membership.": And to return to this, and taking on board your comment above, he wasn't a member of the MCC fifty years before this interview, as he became a member in 1905. So I would still prefer "association" here. Not a big deal, but as written this is slightly inaccurate.

Second World War:

  • "Aware of demand in Australia": Not quite clear what the demand is for here.
    • For his act, clarified but may need checking. I have said "Owing to popular demand for his act..."
      • I think that "aware of demand" is much better than "owing to popular demand", and we certainly need to say where. I think that the only change needed to satisfy Sarastro is to add the "for his act". I've made the change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline in health:

  • "Instead, he would stay at home and draw comic sketches featuring the Prime Minister of Mirth": Why "would"?
  • "a request the comedian was only too happy to fulfil.": I can see why this wording is used, but would "was happy to fulfil" work just as well?
    • Works fine I think. Done. Cassiantotalk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Legacy:

  • Does this section really describe his legacy, or more about his comic style? Perhaps this isn't the best title for the section. Additionally, is there anything general that could be said here about his personality? (It comes across throughout, but I was wondering if there were any pithy quotes)
    • How about "Tributes and legacy"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's it from me. A great piece of work, very readable, and feel free to ignore any of my comments if you don't agree. Let me know when this reaches FAC. Sarastro1 (talk)

(Peer review added on Sunday 6 April 2014, 15:10 UTC)----


An Enemy of the People[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because as part of my Theater History course we have been asing to pick an article and make a contribution to it. At this moment I have added an audio reading, a photograph and expanded the plot summary. Im working on revising the Lead and update the summary so is not as broad as it is now. Any suggestions on the article and what you would find helpful to see in it if you would be searching for information on this play, will be appriciated.

Thanks, BorreroFortier (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


Peer review[edit]

Lead section: The lead section is telling us a bit about this play. I think you can add up more in formation and you can move the information of film to adaptations section.

Plot overview: I think this is good. It has a lot of information so that readers can get the the idea about the story of this play.

Characters: That is good to know who are in this play, but i would be great if you can add more details of each characters such as their personalities...

Themes: This is helpful to understand this play.

Adaptations: This is good!

Audio: That's goot to putting here. Listening is really helpful to understand characters.

I think you are doing great job! my friend! Nossoju (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Review by llywrch[edit]

This is an important play by Ibsen, so thanks for attempting this. However, I encountered a major problem right off the bat: the "Plot overview" sections are large, difficult-to-read slabs of text. To be blunt, the phrase TL;DR -- "too long; did not read" comes to mind. Either shorten the summaries of each act, or use some paragraphing to make them more readable. Once you fix that problem, I'll take another look at this play, & see if I can suggest some ideas for secondary sources. -- llywrch (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 5 April 2014, 20:17 UTC)----


Adrienne Lecouvreur[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have added some sections and edited information on this article, and would like to invite anyone who is familiar with Mademoiselle Lecouvreur to collaborate or make suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, CataVillamarin111 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

LEAD: I think this is a great summary, and introduced me to her in a nice, general way. You have a little type -- I think you mean "scholars have." I really like that you've talked about her whole life here, not just her acting career. That really helps to paint a fuller picture of her personal history. When you say "her story," do you mean her life story?

STRUCTURE: I think you have a great structure. I like that you took the time to talk about her legacy. I might suggest renaming Early Years to "History" and then having subheaders like Early Years, Later Years, etc (or whatever is appropriate). That may help the reader follow along a bit better.

INTERNAL LINKS: You did a great job linking to other Wiki articles throughout the text, when applicable/appropriate. I couldn't think of any See Also pages to add, so for now I think you're probably fine without a See Also section.

EXTERNAL LINKS: Likewise, I drew a blank for any External Links I would have liked to have. Unless you come across something directly relevant, you're probably ok not to have this section either. The article is not lacking, for not having one.

IMAGES: These are wonderful! There are some beautiful images you were able to use. Great job.

HISTORY/HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: I love the information about her early years! Here are a few questions I had when reading: At what age did she move to Paris with her family? I was a little unclear on the second theater troupe in the sentence beginning "Young Adrienne found" ...what troupe are you referring to? I'd also love to know how old she was when she played the role of Pauline -- you may want to make it more clear that this is her stage debut, yes? Finally, I would want to make it clear that Philippe Le Roy is Elisabeth's father, not Adrienne's. The information is all here, just little clarity things! Really great job.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF INFO: I really love the Acting Style section. I think it's wonderful to have this whole section devoted to something she was known for. I also like the Legacy section quite a bit, because it rounds out the article. I would love to see a section devoted exclusively to the talk of her mysterious death, since it seems to be a huge part of her history, and it's something you mention in the lead section.

ACCURACY OF INFO/CITATIONS: You have a number of wonderful citations! I can't wait to see what you add with that new book you just got. I'm really impressed by how thorough these citations are; great job.

CLARITY OF INFO: In the lead, I would change the first sentence to read "considered by many critics" or something that's more neutral/less general. My only other thought would be starting the first sentence in Early Years with "Adrienne Lecouvreur was born Adrienne Couvreur on..." In general, I think you refer to an individual by their last name for the duration of an article, after having mentioned their first name in the lead. So you'd just write Lecouvreur was... for the rest of it. (But you may want to double-check me on that!)

OTHER: Love it! I can't wait to see what else you come up with. Ashleybirdsell (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Comments from Kfurano1129

A great start on this article so far, Catalina! Here is my peer review for our class assignment; hope it is helpful!

  • Structure, format and appearance
    • Lead section - this article's lead section provides an excellent overview of the subject, without going into excessive detail and while keeping the majority of content within the body of the article. The lead section also uses in-text links very well. My only suggestion here would be to clean up the sentence structure a bit; I think the information could be expressed in a more succinct and clear manner.
    • Body - the article contains a logical series of section that help organize the context of the article. I have not seen your writing plan, but I think the article might be improved the addition of sections dedicated to her career in at its peak; on the circumstances surrounding her death; and on her personal life (since you mentioned both in the lead section). Of course, this is all dependent on your access to research material on these topics.
    • In-text links and "See Also" section - this article makes excellent use of relevant in-text links throughout, helping increase the a user's understanding of the article. I would suggest the addition of a "See Also" section to strengthen the article, linking to relevant Wikipedia articles not currently covered by the in-text links.
    • External links section - this article currently lacks an "External Links" section, which would strengthen the overall comprehensiveness of the article's contents.
    • Images - the article contains three relevant images of Mlle. Lecouvreur that all adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. My only suggestion would be to revisit the caption on the third image; it is a little unclear.
  • Content and sources
    • Information - this article's content provides a strong overview of the topic, providing both historical context and a largely complete overview of Mlle. Lecouvreur's life. My only suggestions to expand the article's content can be found in the "Body" section above (again, should relevant research be available). The article is also well-sourced and cited, containing references to strong secondary and tertiary sources, including scholarly journals. As with the lead section, I think the language could be a little more succinct throughout.
    • Sources - I would suggest taking another look at the Wikipedia reference standards handout; the citations could be cleaned up a bit. As per Tim riley and Ssilver's comments to me last semester, it seems to be Wiki best practice to separate journal and news sources into the "References" section that will then refer, when necessary to a "Sources" section that lists all book sources. Also, there are several sources you have listed twice, rather than having separate citations refer to the same reference/source. I'd be happy to show you how to fix this!

Keep up the great work! Kfurano1129 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 5 April 2014, 00:42 UTC)----


Clif Magness[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first Wikipedia article, and I have a conflict of interest.

Thanks, Brentclemens 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 4 April 2014, 18:39 UTC)----


Sad Wings of Destiny[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the Background section has had some additions, and a new section called Reception has been created. Any suggestions about how to improve this article, or what needs to be changed/cut would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Twyfan714 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 4 April 2014, 13:36 UTC)----


Augustin Daly[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as part of my graduate course in Theater History at Brooklyn College. As of today, Thursday 4/3/2014 the only improvements I have made is I've added the warning templates regarding the need for more historical information and improvements to the references section. As I move forward there are other items on my list that need to be expanded upon or added which will improve the articles quality and they are; Lead section, Images, Biography, Notable Works Chronology, Influence (Local Color, Melodrama, directing style, 'star-maker,' managing style, Theaters (Daly's London and NYC theaters). I may also subdivide existing material into more appropriate sub-headings.

Edits that have been made regard improvements I've made to the reference section. I've deleted a dead-link which has then been re-added and made live again by User:Sideways713. I also reformatted two reference correctly.

Thanks, Brian Kafel (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gdirado[edit]

STRUCTURE

Lead section – While the lead provides a nice general introduction to the life and career of John Augustin Daly, it should be expanded so that it summarizes all the major points of the article.

Body – The body of the article is logically structured with helpful and appropriate headings. It provides valuable information, and the writing is, for the most part, clear and concise.

In-text links and "See Also" – This article includes many in-text links that are both useful and informative for readers. The “Biography” section is particularly thorough regarding in-text links. In the “Notable works” section, I would recommend linking realism and melodrama to the appropriate articles. There is no “See also” section in this article, so you might want to consider adding that.

External links section – The one external link included is excellent. I think this section could stand to be expanded further, but only if you can find other links that are applicable and add value.

Images – The article contains an image that is relevant to the topic and follows Wikipedia guidelines. If you can find some, it might be helpful to include images from productions of Daly’s plays.

CONTENT AND SOURCES

Information – This is article has solid foundation to build upon, but much of the information included in the “Biography” section is not sourced. Some of this information seems to be author’s opinion, and needs further explanation. I’m referring specifically to, “At the first of these, he gathered a company of players, headed by Ada Rehan, which made for it a high reputation, and for them he adapted plays from foreign sources, and revived Shakespearean comedies in a manner before unknown in America.” Sentences like these need to be verified by a reputable source, edited for clarity, and further explained. The “Notable works” section is appropriately sourced and represents clear, verifiable facts. The article is off to a good start, but I would suggest including a section that provides historical context and/or discusses Daly’s legacy. I also really like all of the proposed changes you listed above.

Sources – The sources included all appear to be formatted correctly and are from reputable, scholarly sources. Like I said previously, much of the information in the “Biography” section needs to be cited, and I think the article would be improved by the inclusion of a few extra sources.

Great job so far, Brian! I look forward to seeing your progress! Gdirado (talk)

Comments from CataVillamarin111[edit]

Hi Brian, thanks for clarifying what your edits were. Given that you haven't worked on the article's contents, these are some suggestions of how I would improve it.

Lead section – I would expand this section a little bit. As it is, it's too general. I understand, however, that lead sections get "richer" as the articles themselves get more content. But you have a good start there.

Structure – The "Biography" section has great information, which could be divided into sub-headers. There's a great deal on his career, so you could maybe add more information on his personal life, his education or his youth?

In-text links and references – I agree with Gina: this article has a lot of useful in-text links which are both interesting and relevant. However (and as you have pointed out), the article has a lot of statements that need a citation or to be referenced in order to verify them. If you can, before adding new information, you could hunt down fragments of books and articles and add them as references? I'm only suggesting this because, as your article grows, it will be harder for you to find you way around the edit page to do this.

Images – I like the image on the article, and would love to see some more! Is there a way for you to get images of his plays?

Sounds like you have a great plan for this article and I'm looking forward to reading it at the end of this semester! CataVillamarin111 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 4 April 2014, 03:56 UTC)----


Megadeth[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to get it to FA status. Any suggestions regarding copy editing, ideas about expanding the article, or anything that will improve it are welcomed. Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Hi there- I'll do my best to give a full review at a later point (though I don't have as much time for Wikipedia at the moment as I sometimes do) but I think some time devoted to the NFC in the article would help prepare it for FAC.

  • File:Megadeth - Rattlehead.ogg is slightly high in terms of bitrate. Per WP:SAMPLE, 64kbps will normally be sufficient. The rationale could also do with expansion; the "n.a."s should be replaced.
  • File:DaveMustaine1991.jpg should be removed. It's a very large non-free image of a living person. Even if the performance is very important, how Mustaine looked during it surely isn't. The lack of copyright information (original source, photographer, copyright holder) is also very problematic.
  • File:Symphony of Destruction clip.ogg has only one (vague) rationale for two uses. Each use requires a separate, specific rationale. Further, the sample should be reduced to 64kbps and a maximum of 10% of the song length; in this case, 24 seconds.

Fixing these issues now will save problems at FAC! J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Admittedly, I haven't worked on music articles in years, and when I did, it was on a bunch of No Doubt album articles with Escape Artist Swyer, who did most of the work. That said, I'll try to take a closer look at this article later anyway. No major issues jump out at me from a quick skim, although I'm not fond of the sentence "Megadeth is one of the few American underground metal bands from the 1980s that achieved mass commercial success" - I mean, every band is underground at some point, and when they achieve mass commercial success, they no longer are. Tezero (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - need to get rid of fluffy sentences like, "This album, along with touring worldwide, would aid in bringing Megadeth to public recognition." I don't know Megadeth that well so can't comment on comprehensiveness too much. Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"they both examined about 15 drummers because they wanted to get a drummer who possessed unique skills." - ummm, what "unique" skills?
Thanks for pointing that issue. I modified the sentence and I think it reads better now. Just to ask, is it "comprehend well" or "well comprehend" the more accurate way?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 April 2014, 21:10 UTC)----


Theatre of Cruelty[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am editing and improving the article as an assignment for a Theater History course at CUNY - Brooklyn College.

Thanks, Gdirado (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I've made a few minor amendments – typos etc – which please check to see you're happy with them. Revert any you disagree with. This is a most promising article, and I'll certainly look in again shortly with substantive comments. Tim riley (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The article has been improved since Gdirado began work on it last month. I have a few suggestions for further improvement:

  • Theory
    • First two paragraphs lack references. I suggest that if Gdirado thinks they are valid he/she should dig out citations; if they seem like an earlier editor's personal take on the topic they can be removed: all statements in Wikipedia need to comply with our key principles of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
    • Not sure why "impossible theatre" is in bold. Looks rather odd.
    • The statement that Müller, Churchill and Bausch have been identified etc needs a citation to justify it. Who, in short, has so identified them?
    • Block quote at end of section: this was there before Gdirado began work, but I can't work out the strange bursts of capital letters, and the whole block needs sorting out.
  • Empirics
    • I have no idea what "a conceptual heuristic" is. Can this phrase be put in plain English?
    • The para is mostly uncited. If the Walker ref covers all the para it needs to be repeated at the end. If it doesn't a suitable ref is needed.
  • General
    • Quotation marks – Wikipedia's standard is double quotes, so that, e.g., another 'Artaud' and implies, 'untimely' should be tidied up.
    • Except in quotations, where the original spelling must be faithfully reproduced, the spelling of "theatre/theater" should be consistent throughout the article. As the title is "Theatre of Cruelty", that spelling seems called for.

I hope these few points are useful. Don't hesitate to let me know on my talk page if I can be of any further help. – Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Comments from Kfurano1129[edit]

Overall, you have made great progress on this article, Gina - good work! Below you will find my peer review for our class assignment. Hope it is helpful.

  • Structure, format & appearance
    • Lead section - Great use of in-text links in this section! In its current state, the lead provides a sufficient summary of your topic. However, I think it could perhaps be expanded upon slightly to provide a more thorough overview of the article that follows - perhaps a sentence or two about how this philosophy was put into practice on stage and its continuing impact. Also, I'm not quite sure, but I think there should be a citation for Artaud's quote (which is fabulous!).
    • Body - the body of this article is well-structured into logical sections, each providing valuable information on the topic. Great work on this!
    • In-text links and "See Also" - this article is an excellent example of valuable in-text links, which are present throughout and provide necessary insight on the topic to the user. The "See Also" section is also thorough and well-structured.
    • External links section - Good work here so far; the external links provide valuable insight. I think that perhaps this section could be expanded slightly, however. Perhaps you could include links to recent stage productions or more practitioners of this theatrical philosophy.
    • Images - this article currently contains a relevant image that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. If possible, it might be beneficial to include an image from an Artaud production.
  • Content and sources
    • Information - this article presents a comprehensive and accurate overview of the topic. The only suggestion that I would make would be to perhaps include information about the origins of Artaud's philosophy historically - who or what were his influences? It would be interesting to learn more about the historical context in which Artaud developed this theatrical philosophy - what was happening in the world that lead to this radical idea?
    • Sources - this article currently uses reliable scholarly sources that support the information provided. However, there are several facts that don't seem to have citations - particularly in the "Theory" section. I think that would strengthen the article as a whole. The current structure of citations and sources sections also doesn't appear to adhere to Wikipedia standards, as I understand them. I would replace the "Footnotes" section with a "References" section that lists all journal and news sources (fully cited), and that then refers to a "Sources" section that lists all books. I had both Tim riley and SSilvers give me this advise last semester, and it seems to more in line with Wiki common practice.

Keep up the great work and I hope this is helpful! Kfurano1129 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Hello! I think the article is looking good, your improvements have made it a more informative article, and is easy to travel through the article. I would try go get some information about the relationship between the actors and the way Artaud approach the methods theatre of cruelty on them. Aside from that, you could expand on the section of people that use his methods and places that try to experiment with them in the 21rst century. Maybe as you find more information on the subject it can be more subdivided by how Theater of Cruelty affected each single are of the performance (actors, rehersals, experimentation, audience, design...etc)

Looking Good! --BorreroFortier (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 April 2014, 23:58 UTC)----


Theatre Communications Group[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in order to reach out for additional sources to more strongly verify the information I've added to the article, and to seek out additional facts about Theatre Communications Group that can be verified by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Since TCG is an existing organization, I've had to rely on many periodical sources, and I hope to increase the reliability of this article with the addition of more scholarly sources with the help of the peer review process.

Since this article is the subject of an assignment for a graduate course, I would also welcome suggestions about the readability and structure of the article thus far. Thanks for your help! Kfurano1129 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kfurano1129 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

LEAD: This is a really thorough description; great job! I would maybe consider combining the first and second paragraphs for flow; or, you could put all of the publication info together (ie TheatreFacts and the American Theatre magazine, etc). That would help the flow, for me!

STRUCTURE: I really like the way you've divided the article up, particularly the subheadings within the membership section. Perhaps you could use subheadings within the Services and Events section as well? (i.e. Grantmaking activities; networking; publications). Otherwise, your structure is very logical and organized, which certainly makes for easy reading.

INTERNAL LINKS: When applicable, there are internal links to other Wiki pages. This topic as a whole does not lend itself to numerous internal links, but these are thorough for what's appropriate. ARTSEARCH in the lead section is a dead link. I like that you've included the list of TCG member theatres in the See Also section. (Would it be appropriate to link this in the text as well? I was hoping for a list when reading the Membership section. Again, not sure what Wiki-land dictates.)

EXTERNAL LINKS: This a great section; I've never really seen an External Links section with such pertinent info! Good job! I think this is great.

IMAGES: Good use of the logo and the Goodman as a founding theatre. I wonder if you could perhaps include a cover of American Theatre.

HISTORY/HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: This is well-developed! I would perhaps add some information regarding location, if that's pertinent? Not sure where their offices are. Did its founding members all hail from one region? That would be fun to know.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF INFO: Overall, I think this is coming along very nicely! It was an easy but informative read, and I definitely benefitted from reading about TCG. You answered any and all questions I had while reading, and I didn't spot any glaring holes, in terms of comprehensiveness.

ACCURACY OF INFO/CITATIONS: From what I know about TCG, your information is accurate. I'm definitely impressed by your citation efforts! Everything looks incredibly well-referenced.

CLARITY OF INFO: My only concern would be the inconsistent use of TCG versus Theater Communications Group. You use both interchangeably, which doesn't bother me, but I'm not sure if one is preferred over the other in Wiki-land?

OTHER: Love it! Great job; can't wait to see what else you come up with this semester. Ashleybirdsell (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 April 2014, 23:21 UTC)----


Concept musical[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of an educational assignment for the spring 2014 semester. I've worked to add a cohesive definition, a history regarding the origin of the concept musical, a discussion of the first concept musical, and a history of its development.

I plan on adding a section regarding more modern examples, and a section that considers Stephen Sondheim's impact on the genre. After filling out these remaining sections, I'm going to rewrite the lead section to be more thorough.

I'm looking for feedback regarding: what else could possibly be added, and any ways to connect this article more to musical theatre as its 'parent' genre. I'm interested in how the concept musical springs from and feeds into musical theatre's varying forms and popularity. Any other thoughts are of course greatly appreciated!

Thanks very much, Ashleybirdsell (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Peer review[edit]

Lead section: It's simple statement, but it gives me the idea of what is concept musical! i like simple.

Definition: It has a lot of information. Personally, i was confused a bit, because it's me!. There are slightly different thoughts of concept musical by many critics in this section. i think if there was a definition that you think most right and explanation about what critics have thought about it.

History: This section is great. I can see the concept musical's history. Are you going to add up more of recent shows?

sorry for my poor review. It is good time for me to go over your article and i learned from yours. I am looking forward to seeing your final draft! Nossoju (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review by CataVillamarin111[edit]

Overall, I think you're doing an amazing job with this article, especially when the definitions for this subject are so relative. I love how maintain neutrality by citing and referring to critics. A really smart thing to do. These are some things that I liked and that I would suggest.

Lead Section

I like how short but concise it is, and how you mention some key dates without giving the full detail. THis will sound incredibly shallow, and I don't really know how to do this, but I would consider adding an image to this first section to make in look more attractive to readers.

History

This is a very thorough section with lots of relevant in-text links that certainly enrich the experience of reading through the article. I really like how you divided this section into decades: makes it look more polished, and easier to digest.

As for the Modern Examples section, my first guess is that you're probably still working on it, right? Because up until this point you have been really thorough and detailed and there's a lot of great information. In any case, I would encourage you to expand this section further (if this information is available) because you have done an incredible job with it so far.

I hope I had more suggestions to make, but I don't know much about this topic. In fact, I feel I have learned a lot from reading this article. I look forward to reading your final version (and learning some more with it).CataVillamarin111 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to reviewers

Instructions to reviewers, given here, state that level 2 or 3 headings should not be used to subdivide reviews, as these disrupt the WP:PR page. I have adjusted the ehadings in this review to level 4, which is OK to use. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 April 2014, 23:18 UTC)----


Gate to the Northwest Passage[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I seek feedback from other contributors, specifically about three pieces of content that are currently being debated. I submitted a request for comment two weeks ago, but have received no feedback and figured this might be a better route. Please see the article's talk page for discussion. Apart from feedback about these three blurbs, I appreciate general feedback before I nominate it for Good article status. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 31 March 2014, 15:47 UTC)----


Survivor (Elena Paparizou song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to I would like to see if the article needs any improvement on anything. The article is written mostly by me.

Thanks, Dimitris  talk 20:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on structure[edit]

The article would benefit from sections that proceed more chronologically. For example:

  • Background
  • Composition
  • Lyrics
  • Recording
  • Releases
  • Critical reception
  • Charts
  • Performances
  • Awards

Also, it may be better to limit the song competition information to its own section or the Performances and Awards sections. More overall focus on "Survivor" the song rather than "Survivor" at the song competitions would help. Hope this is useful. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 27 March 2014, 20:57 UTC)----


Bringing Up Baby[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article in the last year and a half, including a great Copy Edit and I would like to see it continue to improve. It has consistently gotten poor feedback on the quality assessment page. I attempted a peer review a while ago and got no takers. Hoping to find someone this time.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wadewitz[edit]

I'm going to read the article in more depth but my first question is why there is no "Themes" or "Style" or "Genre" section. There is a lot of amazing film criticism about this movie and very little of it is used to flesh out this article. If you look at Blade Runner or Mulholland Drive, you will see what is possible with a film article. So much has been written on this film, that a really great article is possible! Wadewitz (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the rest of the article, I feel like all it needs is some good copyediting. Here are some spots I noticed:

  • The film tells the story of a paleontologist in a number of predicaments involving a woman with a unique sense of logic and a leopard named Baby - What does "unique sense of logic" mean?
  • Nichols and Wilde began a relationship during their collaboration, and went on to write other screenplays together. - Unclear what kind of relationship - clarify it is a writing partnership.
  • In general the lead feels too long and detailed. I would suggest taking out about half of the material. Summarize more. It is not important to put in all of the details about the reception, for example.
  • In the "Filming" section there are quite a few sentences that repeat information from previous sentences. For example, Beginning at the Arthur Ranch shoot,[25] Grant and Hepburn often ad-libbed their dialogue; production was delayed as the two stars ruined shots by making each other laugh.[26] The scene where Grant frantically asks Hepburn where his bone is was shot from 10 am until well after 4 pm because of the stars' laughing fits.[27] The film was further delayed, and after one month of shooting Hawks was seven days behind schedule. During the filming, Hawks would refer to four different versions of the film's script and make frequent changes to scenes and dialogue.[25] Some delays were caused by Hawks' leisurely attitude on set; on several occasions he shut down production so cast and crew could see a horse race,[27] and he took twelve days to shoot the Westlake jail scene instead of the scheduled five. - In this passage the idea of delay in introduced in almost every sentence as is the idea of filming - you can remove a lot of these phrases and words.
  • Hawks and Hepburn had a confrontation one day during shooting. While Hepburn was chatting with a crew member, Hawks yelled "Quiet!" until the only person still talking was Hepburn. When Hepburn paused and realized that everyone was looking at her, she asked what was the matter; Hawks asked her if she was finished imitating a parrot. Hepburn took Hawks aside, telling him never to talk to her like that again since she was old friends with most of the crew. When Hawks (an older friend of the crew) asked a lighting tech who he would rather drop a light on, Hepburn agreed to behave on set. A variation of this scene (with Grant yelling "Quiet!") was incorporated into the film. - I'm wondering if this can be summarized instead of narrated.


I hope this helps! Wadewitz (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wade for your input. I've given this an edit and in my opinion it now meets GA criteria but might need a minor copyedit in part which I've requested. I gave the lead a significant trim and reworded in parts. GAs don't need masses of critical commentary and I've looked in google books and am content with the coverage it already has.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that GAs do not need lots of critical commentary, but this article has no sections devoted to the topics I mentioned. If you check the MLA and JSTOR databases, for example, you will find some good articles. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what experts think is important about a topic and film critics definitely think that genre and themes are important. This article even points out the importance of this film in the evolution of the screwball comedy, so making that more prominent by making it a section is vital, in my opinion. Wadewitz (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have access, can you suggest some sources and I'll get somebody who does to email me them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Peter Swaab's book will probably has a good deal of theory on the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have access to it, do you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going away for the weekend but will get you a list and send the articles when I return! Wadewitz (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
On her behalf, here's a short list of analyses of the movie's themes and characters:
  1. Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage by Stanley Cavell
  2. Madcaps, Screwballs, and Con Women: The Female Trickster in American Culture by Lori Landay
  3. Different, Except in a Different Way: Marriage, Divorce, and Gender in the Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage by Heather Gilmour in the Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Summer 1998), pp. 26-39
  4. A Proper Dash of Spice: Screwball Comedy and the Production Code by Jane M. Greene in the Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Fall 2011), pp. 45-63
I hope that helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Onel5969[edit]

Okay, there are a few issues in the lead section. First, section needs copy editing. Second, the statement is made that the script was written specifically for Hepburn, but there is no citation, and in the body of the article this is not only not supported, but contradicted (when Lombard is the first actress considered for the role). Third, the discussion of it having the reputation of being a flop gives the tone that this is untrue. When a film does not break even, it is a flop, and the article should not indicate otherwise. If it was a critical success, yet still a flop at the box office, that should be indicated. Finally, there are no citations in the lead section, which is okay, if the material is mentioned elsewhere and there cited. However, for example, the claim is made that the film started to gain popularity in the 1950s when it was shown on TV. Nowhere is this fact backed up.

The plot is all right, although it relies a bit heavily on parenthetic exposition. You might want to consider getting rid of the actors names in the plot section. This is a matter of style, but in other film articles, the plot reads better when not broken up by the actors' names. The section also needs copy editing

In the D&W section, it begins with several uncited assertions. There are several other facts in this section which have no citations (e.g. the food taster Ali). This section really needs copy editing.

The Casting, Filming and Post-production sections are fine, but need some slight copy edit work.

The first line of Reception is redundant, the same point having just been made in the previous section. The first paragraph reads like the film had good reviews, then there are 1 positive, 1 mostly positive and 1 negative review. Which to me gives the indication that the film had mixed reviews. I think you either need to list other publications which gave it a good review (don't have to quote them), in order to show that the preponderance of the reviews was positive, or you need to change the wording to mixed reviews. And again, copy editing.

The Legacy section lists several "all-time" or "best-of" lists, but is missing citations to those assertions. It also needs a bit of copy editing.

The section on "gay" is well done, bringing up both sides of the discussion, with appropriate citations.

I hope this helpsOnel5969 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not a contradiction. When Hawks first bought the rights to the short story he considered Lombard. The subsequent script was written for Hepburn.
I do not believe that anything in a lead necessarily has to be cited and anything in the body of the article is referenced by citations, even it those citations include more than one sentence.
The film was considered a flop and eventually broke even after a few years. Flop is a subjective word anyway and it was certainly financially unsuccessful on its initial run. I don't see what the problem is at all.
EVERYTHING is cited. Just because several sentences are sourced from the same page doesn't mean that every individual sentence must be cited redundantly.
Wadewitz, I look forward to more comments from you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... sorry you feel that way. Regarding Hepburn/Lombard, that's not how the article reads, particularly since the casting section is subsequent to the development/writing section.
  • Second I never said that anything has to be cited, but the one example I gave, regarding it gaining popularity in the 50s is not cited in the "Legacy section". If footnote 34 is for the entire paragraph, then you should delete one of the two citations, as right now it looks like your citing it for those two points, and not for the initial statement. Since it's a hard copy, and can't be simply clicked on (which is not a negative by any means), I couldn't verify what was being cited).
Again, your terminology "reputation as a flop", suggests that it wasn't. Flop is not a subjective term. If a film makes money, it's a success, if it loses money, it's a flop.
And finally, not everything is cited. e.g. there are no citations for the Entertainment Weekly and Total Film claims (I'm pretty sure that wasn't mentioned in the Premier Magazine citations... which are the only citations for that paragraph). In the d/w section, I see your point regarding all of those assertions being on page 4 of Mast's book, and later on page 6.
I'm guessing you don't think it needs any copy-editing either.Onel5969 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead does not need to be cited. Agreed with Deoliveirafan, what needs to be sourced is sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 21 March 2014, 23:01 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Penge[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the first time I visited it was a real mess - it lacked references and contained much anecdotal material. As I was born there I thought Penge should at least have an accurate Wikipedia entry and have done my best to improve it (with the help of other editors and despite the odd vandal).

I feel that it is now in reasonable shape and would like views on what needs to be done to improve it further. For a comparatively small area, is this article of excessive size or should the virtually unlimited space on Wikipedia keep being filled, as long as it is factual and referenced? Are there any omissions?

Along the way I have found that the Library at the House of Commons most helpful with such things as Ordnance Survey maps made for Electoral Boundary Redistribution which can fill the gaps between normal OS editions. Thanks, Bebofpenge (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements for sections that have been missed, and it's probably worth your while to take a look at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for style. To answer your specific questions, no it's not too long - Crystal Palace, London is double the length, but I would say that the Penge article goes into excessive detail in places whilst missing out whole sections elsewhere. For instance, the street name changes can go while the cultural references are excessive and could probably be halved at least. I know Penge is one of those places that attracts comment, but you need to think about quality over quantity, or "farming out" references to other articles. For instance, one scene of Buddha of Suburbia isn't worth a mention here, but might just about be worth mentioning in the Penge East railway station article. That applies to other aspects, in particular there needs to be some thought about the relationship with the Crystal Palace article. I know that originally it was all Penge, but there's no shortage of things to talk about and that area is well covered in the CP article so I'd concentrate on the bits that are more exclusively Pengian(?). Another thing is that the article is currently rather "listy" in places, I know it can't be avoided entirely but you should try to make the text more continuous. Le Deluge (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Lead should be about double the size. Select 3 or 4 of the most interesting/important facts and build the lead.
  • Politics of area - labour or tory? embellish....
  • Surely can enlarge Economy section?
  • Take out the bullet points from Culture and community and Landmarks sections - should be able to write as prose.
  • Need to cite Cultural references section.

(Peer review added on Wednesday 5 March 2014, 12:40 UTC)----


History[edit]

Manuel I of Trebizond[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... well, I've put a lot of effort into creating a comprehensive article on a subject most references don't provide as much information. I'd like to think it could become a FA, but I doubt I have the patience to take it that far, so I'll stop if it reaches as far as GA. Anyway, I know there are points in this article that need polishing or improving, so I'm asking for input on the writing of this article, how well the information is presented. And if you happen to be an expert on the Empire of Trebizond -- although an esoteric portion of Byzantine studies, there are a few of them out there -- feel free to correct the facts or suggest further sources on Manuel Megas Kmonenos.

Thanks, llywrch (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 14 April 2014, 06:08 UTC)----


Theodore Roosevelt[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a former FA that I'd like to at least get back up to GA. Feedback before GA nomination would be very helpful.

Thanks, XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ian Rose[edit]

Hi, well done taking on the considerable task of improving this article. I just now took a very quick pass, mainly spotchecking for prose/style and referencing:

  • Prose/style-wise, I tweaked a few things, and based on that would suggest that a decent copyeditor should give it the once-over.
  • There are many unreferenced statements and paragraphs that need to be addressed before GAN, let alone FAC. A good rule of thumb is to ensure every paragraph ends with a citation (meaning the entire paragraph is sourced to that reference -- if more sources are involved, then several citations may need to be sprinkled throughout the paragraph, as well as at the end).

Those are just what stood out on a brief look, if I can return to offer more detailed comments, I will, but you should have something to go on with for a bit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ian. I'll do some more work and reach you afterwards. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009[edit]

One of my favourite US presidents...!

  • I was surprised not to see a bit more (possibly in footnotes) as to how different historians have interpreted Roosevelt in differing ways. He's a controversial figure, and views do differ, which doesn't really come through in the current text.
  • I'm sure he sparked controversy, but am not able to find that many historians who speak of him negatively (although I personally ensured that the text in this article itself is neutral), only other politicians. Will search, though.
  • If you've got access, have a look at "King Ted, the human dynamo", the review of Morris's book by Ernest R. May in the Times Literary Supplement (including its commentary on Pringle's biography) and Francisco E. Gonzaley's reply, along with May's collective review "Hero of a strenuous age". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd echo Ian's points about referencing - there are a lot of gaps at the moment.
  • Removed lots of uncited content
  • The referencing needs to be made consistent - have a look at the reference list, and you'll see that there a whole range of different styles being used.
  • I'll work on that
  • Check that the references have page numbers - some which need them don't have them yet.
  • Will work on that
  • For web pages, ensure that all the relevant information is given (publisher, date of publication etc.) whenever possible.
  • Will do
  • Watch out for the stubby, one or two sentence paragraphs - they don't make for easy reading, and there are quite a few in the article at the moment.
  • Cleaned those out
  • Worth checking that all the sources are reliable and high quality - one or two look a bit questionable.
  • Which ones?
  • Examples (excluding dead links)
  • Is Americanchronicle.com a high quality source for historical analysis?
  • Apparently not as it is a blog. Will remove as soon as I can find it within the article.
  • "Amberger, J Christoph, Secret History of the Sword Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts " - probably good for ancient martial arts, but is it a high quality source for Teddy's life?
  • I'll check that ref, but will say this: calling him "Teddy" is essentially dishonoring him as he very openly hated being called that. Please point out where this ref is as I can't seem to locate it.
  • melissagenealogy.stormpages.com? (which throws up malware warning messages on my system so some caution might be applied. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure why a genealogy site would give such warnings, but I'll look for something which should be less problematic. At the time, it was the only source I could find for some bits of ancestry.
  • Check for deadlinks (I've found at least one).
  • Shouldn't be a problem
  • I'd consider doing a pruning of the external links. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Any specific ones you recommend removing? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 April 2014, 21:17 UTC)----


Silent Spring[edit]


Level-4 vital article in Art. Important book in the history of environmental regulations, history of pesticide usage, and environmentalism. Listing this under History for that reason.

Would like to see areas where the article need improvement and to be expanded.

I've noticed the article was somewhat lacking recently, so I decided to take material from the main Rachel Carson article that relates to the book over to this article as a starting point. That article has a FA rating, and is very well written.

I have also attempted to improve the lede of the article.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Elaborate on Beyond Silent Spring, particularly since it doesn't have an article. It could actually get its own section.
  • "In regards to the pesticide DDT, Carson never actually called for an outright ban. Part of the argument she made in Silent Spring was that even if DDT and other insecticides had no environmental side effects, their indiscriminate overuse was counter-productive because it would created insect resistance to the pesticide(s), making the pesticides useless in eliminating the target insect populations" - While this isn't in direct violation of WP:NPOV, it comes off as an editorial argument against a pre-established position. There are citations later on that some people thought Carson was calling for an outright ban; either add them up there as well or just remove all mentions in "Contents" of Carson not calling for an outright ban. ...Does this make sense? I hope so.
  • Also, it should be "she makes in Silent Spring", not "made"; this is a general convention for describing stances.
  • The intro's fairly short given the size of the article.
  • You could also probably can the citations in the intro.
  • "Frank Edwin Egler was a contributor to the book." - Obviously, find a source. In addition, though, either merge this into the preceding paragraph (which is also far on the short side) or elaborate significantly on how he contributed.

Tezero (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 31 March 2014, 07:15 UTC)----


Passengers of the RMS Titanic[edit]

Previous peer review

There have been a couple attempts in the past to grant this article/list a featured article status but there have been some various issues that needed to be fixed. I submitted a peer review request a few years ago but got too busy in real life to focus on everything that needed to be done. In the meantime, the article has had a lot of improvements, but probably still some things that need to be fixed before it can be taken into consideration for featured status. I'd like to submit a fresh peer review so I (and others) can work on improving what needs to be improved based on the current state of the article.

Thanks, Morhange (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 30 March 2014, 21:41 UTC)----


Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it to FA status. I would especially appreciate comments of its comprehensivness.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009:

  • I enjoyed reading it - great work.
    • Dear Hchc2009, I highly appreciate your hard work. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • General point. The article makes lots of reference to sources (e.g. "the chronicle of X says that Y happened to Stephen"). Sometimes it is clear that this is important, because it then notes that there are conflicting views. Often there are no other views given. For an encyclopaedic article, I'd advise making the minimum reference to sources necessary - unlike an academic history text, the typical reader doesn't need to know the source unless it's important to the narrative. Indeed, it leaves the impression that the historical statement might be dubious ("why is this article telling me the source, unless there might be something wrong if it? What doesn't it just say "Y happened to Stephen"?) I've highlighted some examples below of where I was a bit concerned by this.
    • Sorry, I think primary sources should always be emphasized. They were either written by possibly biased contemporaneous authors or compiled centuries later. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The other points are most detail points, with the FAC discussion in mind.
  • " descended from the prominent family of the gyulas." - is the capitalisation right here? I only ask because the linked article puts it in capitals.
    • Thanks. I think "gyula" is the proper form, because it is a title (similar to "king", "duke", etc). Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "who was supported by masses of pagan warriors" - "masses of...warriors" felt a bit informal - I'd have expected something like "large numbers of pagan warriors" or something like that.
    • Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " He defeated Koppány mainly with the assistance of Vecelin, Hont and Pázmány and other knights of foreign origin," - this could be read as meaning that Vecelin, Hont etc. were of foreign origin, or that it was the "other knights" who of foreign origin. I'd recommend "with the assistance of foreign knights, including Vecelin, Hont and Pazmany,".
    • Thank you. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " He ensured the spread of Christianity among his subjects with severe punishments." - punishments for what...?
    • Thank you. Fixed (?). Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The date of his birth is uncertain..." - at the start of a section, I'd recommend avoiding a pronoun, and instead give his name.
    • Thank you. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The unanimous testimony of his legends and other Hungarian sources," - "legends" is quite a specific term (it doesn't mean "legends" as in "fables", but rather a particular primary source) and needs defining when its first used.
    • Thank you. Wikilink added. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " the Hungarian chieftain with jurisdiction either in Transylvania" - should this be "an Hungarian chieftain"? (unless there was a special particular lineage of chieftains who held this jurisdiction)
    • Thank you. Fixed (...a Hungarian chieftain...). Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's Lesser Legend adds that he was born in Esztergom" - feeding on from the point about legends above, the typical reader won't know what the Lesser Legend is.
    • Thanks. I hope the wikilink added above clarifies the problem. Furthermore the article provides a detailed description of St Stephen's three legends. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention of the event" - worth restructuring slightly; the first half of the sentence gives the impression that Adalbert wrote the Legend.
    • Thanks. I added the adjective "St" before Adalbert's name: I hope it clarifies that he is the subject of the legend, whose author (Bruno of Querfurt) is mentioned in the same sentence. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " He was given his baptismal name in honour of the first martyr, Saint Stephen." - probably needs a reference.
  • "Stephen's Legend, written by Hartvik, " - as per above - is this the Greater Legend, Lesser Legend, or something else? At this point, most readers won't really know.
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to Stephen's legends, Grand Prince Géza convoked an assembly of the Hungarian chieftains and warriors when Stephen "ascended to the first stage of adolescence",[16] when he was 14 or 15" - is the quote needed here? (given that you give the age specifically?)
    • Thanks. I think it is necessary: the primary sources do not especially mention his age. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "György Györffy also writes, without referring to his source, that Géza appointed his son to rule the "Nyitra ducate" around that time." - does it matter that he doesn't refer to his source? (i.e. if he's reliable, that's fine - I'm not sure if you're qualifying it because this might be dubious)
    • Thanks. I think it is necessary: there is no primary source mentioning Stephen in connection with Nyitra, and Györffy does not refer to his source. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "György Györffy" - probably worth being consistent with how you use the surname or first name + surname.
    • Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • My apologies for the shorthand! In the early years, György Györffy starts off as "György Györffy", then "Györffy", but returns to "György Györffy" again. In the "reign" section, he is just "Györffy", but becomes "György Györffy" in the Coronation section that follows. My advice would be to expand to name + surname the first time a person is referred to in a section, and then just their surname afterwards. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Fixed (?). Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Slovak historians, including Ján Steinhübel and Ján Lukačka, accept Györffy's view and propose that Stephen administered Nyitra (now Nitra, Slovakia) from around 995.[20][21]" - does this mean that other's don't accept this view? (if so, let's say so; if not, then I'm not sure that we need to specify the proponents)
    • Slovak historians refer to Györffy's view. No other historian write of Stephen's rule in Nyitra. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen soon convoked an assembly to Esztergom where his supporters declared him grand prince" - I wasn't at all sure about the "convoke" verb here.
    • What would be the proper verb? Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's ascension to the throne was in line with the principle of primogeniture of Christian monarchies which prescribed that a father was succeeded by his son" - male primogeniture is not that a father is succeeded by his son, rather that he is succeeded by his eldest son, which certainly wasn't universal in Christian monarchies at this time.
    • Thanks. Reference to "Christian monarchies" is deleted. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, it contradicted the traditional idea of seniority," - different grammars have different approaches to using "However..." at the start of a sentence; my usual advice would be to avoid it, given that many oppose its use in this way.
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "most of his partisans were pagans" - partisans in this context, given that there's a rebellion going on, could mean either "partisan fighters" or simply "supporters" - probably worth choosing a different noun.
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Even so, Györffy says that Oszlar ("Alan"), Besenyő ("Pecheneg"), Kér and other place names," do we need to specify the proponent of this argument? (i.e. do others disagree?)
    • I think we should specify it, because he is the only historian to have proposed this. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword"" - it's unclear from the text here who this quote is from.
    • Thanks. Added. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " In the battle between Veszprém and Várpalota," - I had to check back to work out that these were places, rather than people (which is what the "between" would normally suggest).
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Koppány himself was killed on the battlefield" - you don't need the "himself" here.
    • Thanks. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " implying that Stephen accepted the emperor's suzerainty" - the MOS would have this as "the Emperor", as the title is standing in for a specific individual (see WP:JOBTITLES).
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "from the pope, but not without the emperor's consent." - "Pope" and "Emperor"
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " states that the king offered Hungary" - "the King"
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The new king " - King
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The contemporary Annals of Hildesheim[79] adds that Stephen converted his uncle's "country to the Christian faith by force" after its conquest" - is the source essential here?
    • Thanks. I think it is necessary, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Illuminated Chronicle narrates that Stephen "led his army against Kean, Duke of the Bulgarians and Slavs whose lands are by their natural position most strongly fortified" - ditto?
    • Thanks. I think it is necessary, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " Forts serving as county seats also became the nuclei of Church organization." - I wasn't sure of what "also" meant here.
    • Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. They were centers both of Church and of state administration. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "ensured that the Western borders of Hungary" - I don't think "Western" needs a capital letter
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "On the other hand, the alliance between Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire brought Hungary into a war with Poland " - could be "On the other hand, Hungary's alliance with the Holy Roman Empire brought her into a war with Poland" (potentially shorter and avoid repetition)
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to Leodvin, the first known Bishop of Bihar (r. c. 1050 – c. 1060), Stephen allied with the Byzantines and made a military expedition in order to assist them against "barbarians" in the Balkan Peninsula." - is the source important?
    • Thanks. I think it is necessary, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to the Annales Posonienses, the Venetian Gerard was consecrated as the first bishop of the new diocese in 1030" - ditto
    • Thanks. I think it is necessary, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "plundered the lands west of the river Rába" - I think the MOS would have this as the "River Raba"
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's biographer, Hartvic" - needs a comma after Hartvic
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " the king, whose children died one by one in infancy" - "the King"
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " the elderly king" - King
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Annals of Altaich narrated that Stephen disregarded his cousin's claim and nominated his own sister's son, the Venetian Peter Orseolo as his heir.[149] The same source adds that Vazul was captured and blinded; his three sons, Levente, Andrew and Béla, were expelled from Hungary.[149] A report, preserved in Stephen's legends, of an unsuccessful attempt upon the elderly king's life by members of his court indicate that Vazul was mutilated for his participation in the plot." - do the sources matter?
    • Thanks. I think they do matter, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although the Illuminated Chronicle narrates that Stephen "begot many sons"" - ditto
    • Thanks. I think they do matter, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The following family tree... - the formatting of the family tree didn't work on my screen. (not sure if this was a quirk of my system or not!)
    • Thanks. I use two different computers and it works on them. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's "balsam-scented" remains were elevated from the coffin, which was filled with "rose-colored water", on 20 August" - unclear from the text where the quotes are from
  • "A certain youth, all his limbs weakened, suffering paralysis for twelfe years..." personal opinion, but I found the quote a little distracting from the flow of the text.
    • Thanks. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "He was also a "confessor king" whose cult was sanctioned, in contrast with earlier holy monarchs, without suffering martyrdom." I know what you mean here, but the "sanctioned...without suffering matyrdom" don't quite pair up. How about "sanctioned... even though he had not suffered martyrdom"?
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's intact right hand (Hungarian: Szent Jobb" - is the Hungarian translation really needed here? (i.e. does it just mean "right hand"?)
    • Thanks. I think the Hungarian version is important: without it the next sentence about an abbey named after Stephen's Holy Dexter cannot be understood. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Why is it, brothers, that his other limbs having become disjointed..." - again, personally, this didn't work for me
    • I think this article of a saint can contain some similar phrases. Otherwise, this is the cause of the special cult of his Holy Dexter among Catholic Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " writes that the king" - "the King"
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "My dearest son, if you desire to honor the royal crown..." - again, as a stand-alone quote, I found it a bit disjointed
    • I think at least one quotation from his work is important, and this one is connected to the previous sentences. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " representing the king" - "the King"
    • Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • References. Personally, I thought the different styles for referencing primary and secondary sources rather distracting(at first I thought it was a mistake, until I realised the pattern). It is not breaching any MOS rules that I'm aware of, but my honest advice would be to use a common referencing system for books. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. If it does not breach any MOS I would rather use this (consequent) system. Its changing would be very difficult. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a few random comments:

Thank you. I agree. However, I do not have access to the reliable sources cited in the above article. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Watch for duplicate links, there are quite a few in the article
I checked, but I think only WLs which are mentioned in the lead and in the infoboxes are duplicated. I guess it should not be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Refs should all be formatted identically (most use the sfn template but some don't - for instance, citations to the Laws of King Stephen of Hungary)
Thank for your comment. I think the article uses a consequent reference method, by distinguishing primary sources and secondary/terciary sources. As I mentioned above, I understand it does not contradict to WP policies. Please also take into account that this diferentiation is not unique: scholarly works almost always make a difference between primary sources and other works. (Otherwise, the sfn-template could hardly be used when referring to the Laws of Saint Stephen and other primary sources.) Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Are the works in the Primary Sources actually primary sources? Because they look like secondary sources to me (given that they all have 20th century publication dates).
Scholarly works often refer to this kind of literature as "primary sources". Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Aftnn King Stephen, who we reckon was responsible for Christianity in eastern Europe.jpg - needs a US PD tag. The US has no freedom of panorama for statues and the like, so it needs a separate PD tag
  • Same for File:St. Stephen, Esztergom.jpg
  • File:Sztjobb.jpg - You may or may not know the answer to this, but how likely is it that the uploader actually took this photo? I ask because it's a low-res photo that looks like it came from a Google image search, and it seems unlikely that the relic would be exposed for someone to get that close of a picture.
  • Images in general:
    • it's generally best not to force image size, since you can't know what resolution is best for all users (and 190px is a generally useless size to force anyway, since 180 is the default for thumbed images)
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Make sure to use the "|upright" parameter in tall photos
Sorry, I do not understand what "tall" photo means. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Also watch image placement - images shouldn't sandwich text (as the two paintings currently do in the Early years section)
Thank you. I tried to fix it. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully these are helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your remarks and suggestions. I will comment them in two or three days. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 22 March 2014, 05:49 UTC)----


Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it as a FA. Please give me suggestions.

Thanks, RRD13 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Based mostly on the first few sections:

  • Dead link
  • Quite a few citations in the lead - see WP:LEADCITE
  • Quite a few harverrors in references - you might find User:Ucucha/HarvErrors helpful
  • You're mixing different varieties of English - should pick one and use it consistently
  • Several of the bottom navboxes use redirects to this article - can these be changed to direct links?
  • File:Portrait_Gandhi.jpg: when/where was this first published? Any image using a tag that bases copyright status on time since publication, publication date, or country of first publication should include this information - check the others
  • File:Gandhi_and_Kasturbhai_1902.jpg: source link is dead, need to demonstrate pre-1946 publication to show that it's PD in the US. Same with File:Gandhi_South-Africa.jpg
  • Several media have dead source links
  • File:Gandhi_Graffiti_San_Francisco.jpg: if the uploader is the photographer, he does not have the right to release the 2D artwork being represented under a free license
  • File:Gandhi_at_Darwen_with_women.jpg needs a different licensing tag. In general, look at cleaning up image licensing
  • "Gandhi's father was Hindu Modh Baniya and his mother was from Pranami Vaishnava family" - you will likely need to elaborate for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the subject
  • "to study law at University College London, where he studied Indian law" - redundant
  • "observe the precepts of abstinence from meat and alcohol as well as of promiscuity" - as written, this could be read as "observe the precepts of promiscuity" - I think you mean abstain from promiscuity?
  • "The community adopted this plan, and during the ensuing seven-year struggle, thousands of Indians were jailed, flogged, or shot for striking, refusing to register, for burning their registration cards or engaging in other forms of nonviolent resistance. The government successfully repressed the Indian protesters, but the public outcry over the harsh treatment of peaceful Indian protesters by the South African government forced South African leader Jan Christiaan Smuts, himself a philosopher, to negotiate a compromise with Gandhi. Gandhi's ideas took shape, and the concept of Satyagraha matured during this struggle" - source?
  • Check capitalization - for example, "Boer war" should be "Boer War". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • The lead needs to be rewritten. UNDUE given to Partition in para 4

Redtigerxyz Talk 05:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 21 March 2014, 10:57 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Toothache[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Prior to FA nomination.

Comments especially desired from:

  • editors with knowledge of FA process
  • editors with no specialist knowledge of the subject on how understandable the prose is (i.e. any jargon needing to be explained, etc.)

Thanks, Lesion 11:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Why are the paragraph lengths in the intro so wildly uneven? Tezero (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We are working on copyediting the whole article, which includes putting in normal length paragraphs. It is about 50% done which is why currently there are weird length paragraphs. Lesion 09:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh hey, just re-read your comment and you said in the intro. Currently the paragraphs are divided into concepts such as "causes", "treatment". The v short paragraph perhaps could be merged into another which might help this. Lesion 00:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001[edit]

As always very thorough! And a wonderful and interesting history section.

Some brief comments:

  • Quite a few sentences that tail paragraphs lack sources.
  • There are a lot of parentheses, which in my opinion makes it hard to read, although I recognise this is a matter of opinion! Some ways to get rid of these:
    • Creative use of wikilinks. For example: Pain is transmitted by pain receptors
    • Common description followed by technical term: Pain is transmitted by pain receptors (nociceptors)
    • Integrating parentheses into text, especially when they're at the end of a sentence: "which applies to any case where there is a collection of pus in the tissues (e.g. a periodontal abscess, pericoronal abscess or apical abscess). " --> " - for example, a periodontal abscess, pericoronal abscess... "
    • Use of {{efn}} and {{notelist}} for longer notes
    • Rewording from one to two sentences: "The pain pathway is mostly transmitted via myelinated Aδ (sharp or stabbing pain) and unmyelinated C nerve fibers (slow, dull, aching or burning pain), of the trigeminal nerve" -> "The pain pathway is mostly transmitted via myelinated Aδ and unmyelinated C nerve fibers of the trigeminal nerve. The Aδ fibres convey the sensation of sharp or stabbing pain, and the C fibres slow, dull, aching or burning pain..."
    • Removing if the words are just synonyms "Extra-dontally (outside the mouth), " -> "Outside the mouth, "
  • Some paragraphs are very long, and separating into two sections might improve readability
  • Some references with inline page numbers have different page numbers in text. For example this references (currently #18) in text is referred to with page 303: Hupp JR, Ellis E, Tucker MR (2008). Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery (5th ed.). St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby Elsevier. pp. 619–627. ISBN 978-0-323-04903-0.
  • Have done a very small run-through to get rid of some parentheses at the end of sentences and hope that is OK.

Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed feedback. Perhaps there are too many parentheses. Agree with your edits and these sections read better now. Regarding use of notes on this page, this might be good to reduce the overall length. Ian Furst, thoughts? Suspect there are many issues that will be raised with the refs at FA review. To get rid of all page ranges in reflist, and move them to inline citation by use of {{rp|XX}} might be the way forward... Something else that I noticed is that the authors' names are not given in a standardized format. E.g. we have B. Black; Bernard Black, Black, B. etc. Lesion 17:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 12 April 2014, 11:27 UTC)----


Scotopic sensitivity syndrome[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because scotopic sensitivity is a controversial topic, and recent edits have promoted the "pro" argument. The article needs balance, and would benefit from a review by someone with unbiased knowledge in reading disorders.

Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 7 April 2014, 01:22 UTC)----


Placenta[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... this article isn't perfect, but I'd like to eventually get it to GA. I haven't edited this particular article much, and would like the input of other users on what areas need work to get it there, as it is sometimes easier to have a definitive list. Specific, definite and "actionable" points would be most appreciated.

  • Ping to Flyer22, who has worked with me in the past on these reproductive system-related articles.

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • The article seems biased towards human placentas.
  • Is there a source for the statement about the two plurals of the word "placenta"?
  • Lots of short paragraphs around. Also short sections that may be better off merged together if expansion is not possible.
  • Some unsourced statements as well.
  • "Structure" in particular seems wanting of expansion.
  • Similarly, "Clinical significance" should be retitled to something more representative of its contents, and should also be significantly expanded with regards to each disease mentioned.

Tezero (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll try and get to these in the next week or so. --LT910001 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 April 2014, 10:23 UTC)----


Urania's Mirror[edit]

It's been a long time since I've taken an article to featured article, but I think this one has a decent chance: It uses good sources; I think it's pretty well-written, its illustrations definitely improve it, and, buy the time I take it to FAC, I expect to have a full set of images. So, what does everyone think? All advice is appreciated. Thanks, Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Casliber has an interest in constellations, and Chiswick Chap has written a lot of articles about historical works of science- perhaps they would be good people to talk to if you haven't already. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's frustrating all the different computer monitor screens, looks funny on a widescreen but I guess there isn't much we can do about that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Lead should be a little bigger given the size of the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice the Dingley paper has some more info on Bloxam, which might be good to add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What a delightful, quirky subject. I'll help if I can. The only thing that immediately struck me was that if Bloxam was an 'assistant master', he must have been one of many, i.e. "a" not "the", as every teacher was an 'assistant master' except the head and perhaps the deputy head! Good luck with it. Feel free to ping me if you think I can contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm on stage this week with Princess Ida; I'll get to work on this Sunday, during my recovery day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Right. Let's have a look at this. I think I'd rather spin Bloxham off into his own article, to avoid too much here. As for expanding the lead - never quite sure what to put in it in addition to what's there. Any suggestions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 21 March 2014, 00:48 UTC)----


Radial glial cell[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have completely redone the article. Minor fixes that may need improvement are fomating (commas, sentence structure) as well as wikilinks and flow. Please also comment on any content that you think should be added/changes.

Please also note that this is the first wiki page I have worked on, so any advice is appreciated!

Thanks, Anjely9 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Anjely9

Comments from EricEnfermero I notice that this request has been here for a while with no comments. I'm a nurse, and certainly no subject matter expert, but I'm happy to leave some comments. Mostly, I think that there are some opportunities to make the language a little bit more accessible to the non-scientist reader.

  • Words like progenitor come up several times. I know you link to that term, but you might also explain in a few words, especially in the lead, where you're introducing the reader to the topic.
  • Same thing for the use of unipotent and multipotent - may be better as "can divide into (one/multiple) cell types"
  • "various varicosities or swellings" - is this a direct quote from Magini? Best to include an inline citation directly after a quote.
  • "Additional early works that were..." - passive voice makes this a little confusing
  • Functions section: I'm confused about whether Notch should be capitalized in this context.
  • "first widely-accepted" - usually no hyphen after an -ly adverb.
  • lowercase for glia in the Bergmann glia image
  • lowercase for lissencephaly x 2
  • See also: In most cases, we don't include wikilinks here if they've already been linked and discussed in the body.
  • References: Some caps issues in the references. For journal names, each major word is usually capitalized.

These are some initial comments for at least a starting place. Strong work so far! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 4 March 2014, 20:21 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

List of Bleach chapters (1–187)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback about changes if this article need some cause I would like to nominate it for a featured article.

Thank you for your time, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC))

(Peer review added on Friday 18 April 2014, 15:50 UTC)----


Holly Goddard Jones[edit]


Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 15 April 2014, 21:09 UTC)----


Philosophy and religion[edit]

David Malet Armstrong[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because at some point I would like to nominate it for GA. I've been steadily working on the article over the last few years and taken it from this to what you now see. I nominated it for DYK at one point, but a paragraph of exposition wasn't sourced and I was too busy in real life to fix it, so the DYK was declined.

I have more sources to add: the section on 'Mind' needs expanding with some of Armstrong's criticisms of other theories and ideas in philosophy of mind, and the epistemology section needs beefing up with Armstrong's early work on Berkeley and perception and various other works.

My question for this PR are:

  1. Are there ways I can make this more accessible to the lay reader? I have used this article as a pointer for graduate student level readers trying to understand some of the more technical parts of Armstrong's writing like the Principle of Instantial Invariance. I want this article to be useful as an overview of Armstrong's ideas for the lay reader as well as a useful and informative technical description of his ideas for a more advanced reader.
  2. What do I need to do to get this to GA standard?
  3. What other ways are there to improve this article?

Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 11 April 2014, 05:19 UTC)----


Etchmiadzin Cathedral[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it as perfect as possible before nominating it for Featured article. I've been working on it since early November of last year and it passed as a Good article in December. I prefer an experienced editor to review this article. As you may have already noticed, English isn't my first language and I do make a lot of mistakes (both grammatical errors and simple typos), so it would be helpful to point them out to me or just correct them.

Thanks, Երևանցի talk 04:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

well, it might be ready, but I would ask someone who's good at copyediting to give the article a once-over. also, check all the refs, make sure they actually say what they're supporting. check the licensing on the images as well. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A copy edit would be helpful, but I'm a little skeptic about copy editors, because they often do more harm than good. I will review the article a few more times before nominating. --Երևանցի talk 20:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just been reading through it and making some changes. I feel the quality of the article is poor, and the references used are particularly bad (mostly general works for non-specialist readers). It needs a lot of work done on its content, and better references - preferably specialist books about Armenian architecture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 April 2014, 04:10 UTC)----


Sri Aurobindo[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because want to this article to FA suggestions in converting this to FA would be helpfull

Thanks, Shrikanthv (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury[edit]

General
  • I noted that you have quite a few citations to autobiographical works and self-published works. Ensure only basic facts are cited there, and nothing controversial or requiring academic inquiry or confirmation. For these you need secondary sources.
  • Check wikilinks; key terms should be linked in the lead and then first mention in the body. For example, ICS. Also check for double-redirects; your first link to ICS goes to a page that redirects elsewhere.
Lead
  • "turned into a spiritual reformer" is an awkward phrase. Maybe "became a spiritual reformer" or "refocused on spiritual reform".
  • " writing articles against their rule" Clarify what is meant here. Opposing their rule? Critical of their rule?
  • "Sri Aurobindo evolved a new method of spiritual practice" Evolved is an awkward term. Invented? Developed?
  • "Aurobindo was the first Indian to create a major literary corpus in English." This strikes me as something that could be challenged, and it is sourced to something that looks like a college textbook. Do you have any other academic sources about this? Do you have any information on the strength and authority of that book?
Biography
  • The Early Life section seems lightly cited. Do the citations at the ends of the paragraphs support all the text? If you go to FAC, reviewers may request more citations.

Will return with more later. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, have started to work on that but Spike Wilbury , have little concern over claims such as below

" Although his family were Bengali, his father believed British culture to be superior to that of his countrymen. "

the actual book here and at page 6

I feel its a wrong claim , Their is another senior editor involved in current correction, so what would be the right thing to do ? (unless if have to go for edit wars ) Shrikanthv (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The source given at the end of that paragraph is Heehs (2008), pp. 8-9. Do you understand how our citation system works in this case? Anyway, the source on p. 8 seems to support that claim. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 27 March 2014, 10:47 UTC)----


Social sciences and society[edit]

Canoe & Kayak UK[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an independent assessment of the article's quality with suggestions for improving the article for a Good Article nomination.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 April 2014, 10:44 UTC)----


Alex Morgan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on improving it to meet WP:GA?.

Thanks, Hmlarson (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 6 April 2014, 17:05 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

List of currencies in North America[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as I withdrew the previous FLC, but I feel I have adequetly addressed the issues there, and brought the article up to a sufficient standard to be taken there again. However, I want a second opinion on the quality of the article. Thanks, Matty.007 18:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 April 2014, 18:18 UTC)----


List of SpongeBob SquarePants cast members[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this to FL status. I would like to hear some comments on the whole article's prose (if you find some problems or awkward wordings, etc) before nominating it at WP:FLC so it can be fixed. Thanks in advance for taking time to review this article. :)

Thanks, Mediran (tc) 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no real experience with FLC, but I'm happy to have a look through and offer some thoughts.

  • "upon the cancellation of Rocko's Modern Life." It would be good if you could provide a bit more context on why this was relevant. "upon the cancellation of Rocko's Modern Life, which Hillenburg directed." (or whatever)
    • Done.
  • "Kenny and Catlett were the first cast members to receive award nominations for their voice-over performance." for their performance on SpongeBob, surely?
    • Done.
  • Interesting thought, but the addition of a non-free sample of SpongeBob's voice may be useful. I'm certainly left wondering what it sounds like!
    • I'll start looking for a good sample. Thanks :)
  • I don't really like the phrase "speaks the voice" or "performs the voice". "Voices" or "provides the voice of" are better
    • Fixed.
  • Be aware of MOS:LQ. See "Lawrence had "an interesting voice." Grillo" and "Squidward was "a very nasally, monotone kind of guy," said Bumpass."
    • Fixed.
  • "the characters of Patchy the Pirate, the president of the fictional SpongeBob SquarePants fan club, and his pet called Potty the Parrot debuted. The former is portrayed by Kenny, while series creator Hillenburg voiced the latter." Mention the fact Patchy is live action explicitly? Also, is the fan club fictional? Can kids not join it?
    • Is "...and his pet called Potty the Parrot debuted. The former is portrayed by Kenny in live-action, while series creator Hillenburg voiced the latter." better? And yes, that fan club exists only within the show's context.

Generally seems like a very strong article. Sources and pictures seem appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you very much! This is very helpful! :) Mediran (tc) 08:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 29 March 2014, 11:16 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]