Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
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.



Everyday life[edit]

Belgium national football team[edit]

I've listed this article, currently B-status, for peer review because I want to attempt an FA nomination. Could someone screen it on major shortcomings for FA? Especially feedback regarding the neutrality and the length (specifically in the chapter "Competitive record") would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance, Kareldorado (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 October 2014, 11:30 UTC)----

Josh Hutcherson[edit]

Previous peer review

I brought this article to GAN about a year ago and it was successful in that nomination. The end goal is a successful FAC. I attempted a peer review of this article before but it received not one comment of feedback. I brought it to FAC after that and received some helpful feedback, but nobody was commenting on it and it was eventually archived with no consensus to promote. I'm back again here for try #2, looking for some tips and ideas on how to best get this article ready to go for another FAC. Any and all help is appreciated! Gloss 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am no expert at good article pages about famous people, but in the assumption that every tiny bit might help:

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Overall very good looking - neat structure and well cited.
  3. A WP on referencing/citing (can't find the name immediately) recommended the use of one these formats in citations: YYYY-MM-DD or abbreviation into three letters of the month, so "21 January 2014" would become either "2014-01-21" or "21 Jan 2014".
  4. In the "Awards and nominations" table, you should lump together the same years and if applicable also the organizations, just like in the Filmography table. It gives a better overview and a lighter look.
  5. Below the picture in section "Personal life", the word "(right)" seems needless

Good luck! Please also take a look at my Peer Review, Kareldorado (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the review. However, I'm concerned with these requests. I've never heard of the recommended format being YYYY-MM-DD, would you mind linking to that guideline before I begin a load of work I'm not necessarily sure is necessary. For the table concern, per WP:ACCESS, the years are not supposed to be lumped together, rowspans are not supposed to be used. And as for the picture caption, the word (right) is included because the word (left) is also included (which I feel makes the most sense). Gloss 02:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 October 2014, 21:08 UTC)----

Dota 2[edit]

Previous peer review

This article has been lingering on the verge of Featured Article status for what seems like ages now, but has not received thorough or specific enough input to allow us to cross that threshold. With every possible detail addressed on the talk page, it is time to open up a new peer review to help us grind out any possible inadequacy. JimmyBlackwing, CR4ZE, shall we begin? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I remember the overhead map of the battlefield with the turrets, etc. marked. Even though a reviewer complained about it at the FAC, I think that we have a good case for using the non-free content to illustrate the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I was the reviewer. The map adds nothing informative to those who don't play the game. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree. May I ask, do you play the game? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've played it before. I fail to see what the minimap adds for the average reader. There's no precedent for including minimap screenshots in FAs, and with good reason—to cover them in detail is blatant WP:GAMECRUFT. Tell me: how can such an abstract image add meaningfully to the reader's understanding of Dota 2? Why would we include a minimap shot in Dota 2 but not in an RTS FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"I've played it before." I have not played Dota 2. I humbly suggest that I am in a better position to judge how informative the map is "to those who don't play the game".
"I fail to see what the minimap adds for the average reader.... How can such an abstract image add meaningfully to the reader's understanding of Dota 2?" The map provides an excellent overview of where the opposing bases and towers are in relation to each other, and how the lanes connect everything.
"There's no precedent for including minimap screenshots in FAs." That's irrelevant to this article, unless you can demonstrate that there has been a clear consensus to exclude such maps. You have not done this.
"to cover them in detail is blatant WP:GAMECRUFT." Adding a photo of a map is hardly "covering them in detail". Moreover, none of the 13 points in the guideline that you quote prohibit the map. Your characterization of the map as "blatant gamecruft" is ridiculous.
"Why would we include a minimap shot in Dota 2 but not in an RTS FA?" If an RTS game always uses the same map, and that map is critically important in the gameplay and strategy, then there is an excellent case for including a map in that article. If you have a specific game/article in mind, please direct me to it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point. A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft. I never said that the minimap was gamecruft—I said that "to cover [a minimap] in detail" is gamecruft. And you need that much detail to give something this abstract meaning. Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past? There is no happy medium. The map has to stay cut. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 2¢: Dota 2 and dotalike concepts of lanes/ancients are better explained through images than through text. This said, you could easily make a free use mockup (rather than a fair use screenshot) of the playing field, as one would of a football or another sports field. With my cursory understanding of Dota, you'd want to show the major features of the map (lanes, towers, any specific physical landmarks) and nothing near the level of detail in the previous minimap ordeal. If you cannot do it yourself, try WP:GL/I. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar  05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd add that the {{overlay}} template should be avoided at all costs. Make a simple, color-coded image that can be summarized in a standard image description. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point." It's a highly relevant point. "Critically important" details certainly should be considered for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
"A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft." Utter rubbish! The previously-included image had a legend that noted the position of bases, towers, and a few other notable features. I suppose that you characterize that as a "gigantic legend". Even this so-called "gigantic legend" does not fit any of the 13 criteria listed at WP:GAMECRUFT. Yet you persist in using this label.
"Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past?" Despite your presentation of this very weak, circumstantial evidence as a rhetorical question, I note that you ignored my first criterion: if the game always uses the same map. From the time that I played Command & Conquer: Red Alert many years ago, I remember that each level had a different map. I suspect that remains the case for other RTS games. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The old legend was ludicrous—like something out of a Prima guide. Twenty-eight points of interest? Really? In a general interest encyclopedia article? Obviously falls under criteria 3 and 4: "Detailed instructions"; "Strategy guides and walkthroughs". We aren't here to teach people the 28 major locations on Dota 2's minimap. It's shocking to me that you would even try to defend the legend's size. As for the side points—irrelevant. Wavedashing is critically important in Super Smash Bros. Melee, but do you see a detailed breakdown of it in the article? No; it isn't even mentioned. It's impossible to play Flight Unlimited II without a working knowledge of flight instrument arcana, and yet those instruments are discussed only in passing. Likewise with minimaps in strategy games: they can be mentioned, certainly, but decoding their details is best left to a manual or strategy guide. Whether the contents of the minimap change has absolutely no bearing on anything.
  • In any case, I'm willing to accept Czar's proposed compromise: a stripped-down representation of the playing field, simple enough that it can be described without a legend. This would support the average reader's understanding of Dota 2 without veering into strategy guide ridiculousness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on this compromise, Axl? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"The old legend was ludicrous." Rubbish. The old legend was fine. Indeed you are the only person who has complained about it.
"Obviously falls under criteria 3... : "Detailed instructions"." No instruction at all is provided in the legend, let alone "detailed instructions".
"criteria 4:... "Strategy guides and walkthroughs"." The guideline states "Basic strategy concepts are helpful to understand the game, but avoid details about how to solve puzzles and defeat certain foes." The position of towers and lanes is certainly a basic strategy concept. Yet the legend provides no details on how to defeat the enemy team.
"We aren't here to teach people the 28 major locations on Dota 2's minimap." We are here to provide general encyclopedic information about notable topics.
"It's shocking to me that you would even try to defend the legend's size." LOL, you are easily "shocked". I am equally "shocked" by your misinterpretation of WP:GAMECRUFT.
"As for the side points—irrelevant." I have no idea which "side points" you refer to. Each of my points was a direct response to one of your points.
"Super Smash Bros. Melee... Flight Unlimited II." As I previously mentioned, that is weak, circumstantial evidence.
"I'm willing to accept Czar's proposed compromise: a stripped-down representation of the playing field, simple enough that it can be described without a legend." I suppose that a stripped-down map is better than no map at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

With that out of the way, @DarthBotto: my Lightning prose review is now complete. I'll get to this article today or tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing:, the map featured 28 landmarks, including the towers, the Ancients, the fountains, the shops and Roshan. Since you want a simplified version, what would you like featured? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Only what's necessary to depict the playing field: the lanes, the Ancients and probably the towers. Perhaps Roshan's location could be included because of its strategy importance. See the visual design of [1] or [2] for inspiration. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Prose review from JimmyBlackwing
  • "the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients (DotA) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne mod" — Too much information crammed into too little space. Even knowing the context, I can barely follow this sentence.
  • "each of which occupies a stronghold at a corner of the map" — There are three instances of "each" in this paragraph, and this one is the easiest to replace. Perhaps, "which occupy strongholds in two corners of the playing field".
  • "over 800,000 concurrent players.[7]" — Citations are not necessary in the lead, unless this information is not repeated in the article body—and, in that case, it shouldn't be in the lead anyway.
  • A rewrite:
  • "Dota 2 is a multiplayer online battle arena game; its gameplay that focuses on combat in a three-dimensional (3D) environment, presented from an oblique high-angle isometric perspective." (Italics signify an addition. Don't forget to wikilink Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art.)
  • After the first sentence of Gameplay, you need to introduce the teams and the objective. It doesn't really matter what single players do until their actions are contextualized.
  • A rewrite:
  • "The player may command a single controllable character called a controls one of 108 "Hero" characters, each with a specific role. For example, etc., which is chosen from a selection pool of 108." (Replace "etc." with one or two relevant examples.)
  • A rewrite:
  • "Each By Hero begins the match at level one but may become more powerful by accumulating experience points through combat, Heroes thereby leveling up and gain health and magic points." (Remember to wikilink Experience point, Health (gaming) and Magic point.)
  • A rewrite:
  • "With every Each level gained—the maximum is twenty-five— allows the player to may either select a new ability for their Hero, such as etc. to learn or enhance their general statistics."
  • "The Hero's methods of combat are influenced by their primary property – Strength, Agility, or Intelligence." — This can be cut entirely.
  • "Dota 2 features a host of items, which the player may store in a small inventory. Said items may be acquired predominantly through purchase by gold, the in-game currency. Items vary in function: some enhance the statistics of a Hero, while others grant additional abilities." — Explain how to get gold before you tell the reader how it's used. Also, all three of these sentences could be reduced to the following: "The player uses gold to purchase items, which, when stored in a Hero's inventory, confer bonuses such as increased attack power or health." Remember to wikilink Item (gaming).

These changes entail a sizeable amount of content rearrangement, and I have another pressing review to address, so I'll leave it there for now. Once you've dealt with the points above, I'll come back for another round. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from Axl
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Each player controls a "Hero" character and focuses on leveling up, collecting gold, acquiring items and fighting against the other team to achieve victory." Perhaps also include destroying enemy structures/buildings in the list? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "The player may command a single controllable character called a "Hero", which is chosen from a selection pool of 108." Is the pool always 108 Heroes, or does Valve occasionally release new Heroes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "These items are acquired predominantly through purchase with gold, the in-game currency." Does "gold" really need a wikilink? I wonder if there is a more appropriate Wikipedia article for video game currency? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "The player automatically receives small increments of gold continuously, though they can obtain more by destroying enemies." Perhaps "killing" rather than "destroying"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "Killing non-player characters grants gold only to the player who lands the final blow, whereas killing enemy Heroes grants gold to the player's nearby allies as well." I am not sure if enemy Hero bots count as "non-player characters". I suspect that this is not intended. Perhaps this should be changed to "non-Hero targets" or "enemy creeps and neutral targets"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note from the nominator

JimmyBlackwing, Axl, pardon my absence- I have been engaged heavily in a new film project, so my Wikipedia time has been severely limited. Let me get back to you on your notes. Apologies! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Real life takes precedence. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 15 October 2014, 22:40 UTC)----

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I am hoping that this article will one day become a Featured Article, but that's in the future. This peer review is so people can have a look at the article and suggest any ways that it could be improved, taking into account that two of the games haven't been released in the west and one hasn't been released at all. Any/all sensible and constructive comments are wanted and appreciated.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
  4. 1 image used in article, with appropriate fair use rationale on image page, good job there.
  5. Not sure citations are needed in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE, those could all probably be removed, with a check to make sure same info is already cited lower down in main article body text.
  6. Comment elements -- suggest changing sect header to simply: Themes.
  7. Creation and development -- recommend making those two into smaller sub sects Creation and Development, within new larger subsect, Production.
  8. In fact, you might benefit from reading WP:MOSFILM.
  9. Consider cutting down total use of quotations in article, instead paraphrasing where appropriate, this will help you later down the road at WP:FAC.
  10. Reception sect, missing info if any Awards / Accolades won / nominated ?
  11. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done most of what you cited. I even managed to archive all links and deal with the questionable link I saw. Nearly all the slower ones were IGN, and since some of the information there is exclusive to the site, there's no much I can do apart from archiving them. I also succeeded in archiving the Square Enix Blog reference. Thank you very much for your comments. I am definitely thinking of taking this article to FA at some point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Post-TFA depression sucks, but maybe contributing to the improvement of someone else's hopeful FA can help me out. Of course, it isn't about me! (Wait, actually, please review Freedom Planet '​s PR if you can. Okay, NOW it isn't about me.) As I passed this article's GAN, obviously I'm pleased with it overall, but there are a few minor points I'd like to bring up that... may or may not have been there before.

  • "The concept for the Fabula Nova Crystallis series occurred" - pick a better verb; "originated", perhaps?
  • Creation is a long paragraph.
  • "creating the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII " - specify what this is; contrary to intuition, it isn't a compilation but a sub-series
  • Might make more sense to simply phrase it that they chose to build upon the idea of blah blah blah, which came from Compilation of Final Fantasy VII.
  • Was Nojima's book ever released, or just a series bible?
  • Did Final Fantasy XIII begin development before or after the concept for the FNCFF sub-series originated? "Early 2004" could be before, after, or during April. If that information's available, anyhow.
  • "film franchises such as Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings film series" --> "film franchises such as Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings"
  • The aggregate review score table's a little wide. Are the numbers of reviews necessary? Those aren't standard. Does the entire title of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII (as opposed to just Lightning Returns) need to be written out? Also, unrelated to length, why are they all linked?
  • I feel like the Related media section could go into a great deal more detail. I mean, we don't even know when most of these things were released or anything meaningful about the content.

This is all from a quick hop-around. If you'd like me to really dig into the prose, just ask, but I haven't got the time, energy, or alertness for that now. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:, Done stuff with the suggestions you gave, and was able to clarify a few points. I also left some comments on the peer review you linked. Won't try to ask you for anything in return. ;) --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 October 2014, 15:12 UTC)----

Engineering and technology[edit]


God Help the Outcasts[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it has recently achieved GA status, and I think it has real FA potential. I am a little-bit-here-and-a-little-bit-there kind of editor, and so I only helped out in a minimal way here, but @Changedforbetter: is the real hero, so I hope we can all work together to create was great article. :)

In particular, source checks, prose copyedits, and image/sound checks are good places to start.

Thanks, Coin945 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 October 2014, 16:57 UTC)----

Virginia Tech shooting[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was a former featured article and lots of people have been trying to re-list it since it lost it's status, but failed to do so. I would like to get help to find and fix errors before re-nominating it as a GA.

Thanks, Chamith (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 October 2014, 07:25 UTC)----

2014 PDC World Darts Championship[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…this article is unassessed like many individual dart tounaments and would serve as a guide. This is the first time I have asked for a peer review hope I done it right.

Thanks, Perfectamundo (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 October 2014, 02:12 UTC)----

Francis Poulenc[edit]

Francis Poulenc is another French composer I hope to get to FA standard in the wake of Fauré and Massenet. Poulenc is too often dismissed as a lightweight, and I hope I have done a little bit to counter that misapprehension. Comments on prose, balance, images, sourcing, indeed anything, will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 11:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from BB[edit]

First half:

  • "he came under the influence of Erik Satie and Jean Cocteau, under whose tutelage he became one of a group of young composers..." This sort of suggests that Cocteau was one of Poulenc's music tutors, which is hardly the case. Also, I note that the only reference to Cocteau's influence on the young Poulenc is in a quotation of Milhaud – we next meet Cocteau in 1958. So if Cocteau is worthy of mention in the lead, his influence needs to be spelled out a little more directly.
Early years
  • "when he was eight he first heard the music of Debussy and was fascinated by its modernism." Could the eight-year-old really identify "modernism"? I suspect that it was the originality of the sound that fascinated him, which only later he recognised as modernism.
  • Referring back to my earlier comment re Cocteau, it seems that the musical influence of Viñes was profound, but he is not mentioned in the lead at all.
  • "Henri Hell" – what a name! A slightly spooky inversion of "Henry Hall" – remember him?
    • "Here's to the next time", if I have the right bandleader. This bloke's name has forced me to flout WP rules about repeating people's given names. I can't say, e.g., "Hell finds the work enjoyable" without the risk of raising the eyebrows of the devout. Tim riley talk 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
First compositions and Les Six
  • jeu d'esprit is probably worth a link
  • Comma after "local elementary school at Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré"?
  • ...and another after "known in France"
  • [Doesn't Ravel look rather like Kenneth Williams? SchroCat and Cassianto need to be advised]
  • Is it possible to present the text of the Milhaud quotation in a manner that differentiates it from the main text in some way?
    • It's a blockquote; does the indented left-hand margin bump into the tripartite mugshot on your screen? You must have an unusually big one. The layout looks fine on my desktop and laptop. I could make it a full width quote box, but I'm not sure that would help. I suspect the vagaries of hugely differing screen sizes and resolutions are something up with which we simply have to put. Tim riley talk 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "taking a total of 58 lessons" is a little Pooterish – maybe not essential info?
1920s: increasing fame
  • "In 1922 Poulenc and Milhaud travelled to Austria to meet Alban Berg, Anton Webern and Arnold Schönberg. Neither of the French composers was influenced by their Austrian colleagues' revolutionary twelve tone system, but they admired and respected its three leading proponents." Slight confusion in the wording here; I would end the second sentence "...But they admired the three as its leading proponents".
  • Make it clearer that Les biches is the ballet referred to in the previous sentence
1930s: new seriousness
  • "after two years' break" → "after a two years' break"?
  • "The following year he wrote three sets of songs..." – probably name rather than pronoun, for clarity (the following "Poulenc" could be a "he"}

If I may say so, notwithstanding the above minor gripes, the prose bounces along most pleasantly and is a joy to read. I look forward to the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BB. Absolutely ad rem and all attended to apart from the one layout point (as above) and the suggested link to jeu d'esprit: I'll wait to see if I get away with "leg-Poulenc" once non-English reviewers look in (if they do) before tweaking the jeu. If Wehwalt or Ssilvers tells me "leg pulling" won't do for American readers, or Cg2p0B0u8m expresses disapproval I'll be getting the blue pencil out for this sentence. Looking forward to your further comments, at your leisure. No rush, as ever. Tim riley talk 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"My well-loved lord and guardian dear, you ping-ed me, and I-I-I-I am here." I think the footnote about the leg-pulling is quite clear. Is that the question? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It was, and I'm v. grateful for your view on it! The Lord Chancellor talk 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with it as it stands and will put this article on my "to review list".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you, sir! Looking forward to it. No rush whatever. Tim riley talk 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Alfietucker[edit]

Hi Tim. I've been "away" for some time, and still have - alas - little time to devote to WP, but I couldn't resist having a read-through of your lovely article. Just a few comments:

Early years
  • 'a lifelong taste for what he called "adorable bad music"' – some examples of this, please? After all, one person’s “adorable bad music” is another person’s…
First compositions and Les Six
  • Ravel 'damned the recent works of Debussy and the whole of Chabrier's music'. I haven’t got any of my sources to hand, but this seems a little unlikely on the face of it, since Ravel admitted being strongly influenced by Chabrier in his Minuet antique, and also did an affectionate À la manière de Chabrier. I think a footnote at least to more fully explain Ravel's position/the context of his (alleged?) dismissal might be an idea here.
  • According to Milhaud, "Auric and Poulenc followed the ideas of Cocteau". What ideas? Can we say something about this, if only in a footnote (though I think it deserves a sentence or two earlier in the article)?
  • [A point of style - I notice the Milhaud quote uses capital 'R' for Romanticism, as in the aesthetic rather than "lurve". Do you want to do an initial cap on all such cases of 'Romantic' through the article? - e.g. for "late-romantic lushness" a bit earlier.]
  • Can we say a bit more about what Koechlin taught Poulenc (I seem to recall it was largely harmonizing Bach chorales, though Poulenc shows here and there some indication that he studied counterpoint).

I'm not sure whether I'll have time to do a more careful read, but I thought I'd post these comments for what they're worth, and say how much I'd enjoyed the article. Alfietucker (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Alfie, I'm as delighted to get your comments as I am aghast at how demanding they are going to be to deal with adequately. I shall sleep on them. Meanwhile, a cordial welcome back, however fleeting, and looking forward to more from you when real life permits! Best of all possible wishes, Tim riley talk 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 October 2014, 11:21 UTC)----

Santa Cruz Parish Church (Maribojoc)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review for comments related to possible FA nomination in the future Thanks, Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Intriguing article on a building relating to a major religion, one according to its Wikipedia article is "among the oldest religious institutions in the world", the Catholic Church. (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Currently there are indeed multiple paragraphs, but quite skimpy in size.
  4. 9 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay. You may want to trim down number of images used in article, to make it easier on image reviewer doing image reviews at WP:FAC.
  5. Citation number 3 is tagged as unreliable source. This needs to be resolved before WP:FAC.
  6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
  7. References sect combines both harv citation notes and full references in same sect. Recommend splitting into 2 sects, Notes and then References, per models at WP:FAs including: The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
  8. All notes in Notes sect need citations, otherwise this is also unsourced info which will be a problem at WP:FAC.
  9. 2013 Bohol earthquake sect, there's gotta be more sourced info in secondary sources that could be used to expand this sect from just two (2) total sentences in sect.
  10. Dome -- one-sentence-long-sect is a bit questionable, could maybe be expanded or merged elsewhere.
  11. Location sect should be ordered before Church history sect.
  12. Features sect could be retitled instead as Building features sect, to indicate this is about the building itself, and not history or about congregation etc.
  13. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. Actually, the article was restored to its contents, layout by another editor after it passed GA. Here are the comments:
  2. Done. The link was on the external link section.
  3. Noted. Will expand it later.
  4. Noted.
  5. The article was restored by an editor to the its content after passing GA due to unnecessary edits. This is resolved.
  6. Noted.
  7. Restored to GA status history. Done
  8. Done
  9. Done.
  10. Done. Merged with Interiors section.
  11. Done.
  12. How about architecture?
  13. I'll edit the other sections later. Thanks for the PR. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 October 2014, 20:25 UTC)----

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to determine the possibility of getting a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in June of 2016. I want to see if this has WP:FA potential.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As stated below, I also need as much editorial guidance as possible in pursuit of FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

(having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. That is a laudable goal, because it's challenging due to the fact that there might be a lot more coverage in secondary sources of further developments in this person's career between now and then.
  3. I would still strongly suggest copy edit from WP:GOCE and perhaps from people you can get who are previously uninvolved and have never even seen this article before as additional copy editors.
  4. Section: Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski#Andy_Hardy_vs._Andy_Fitzgerald, this needs to be definitively addressed before FAC.
  5. It would certainly be quite nice before FAC to obtain a free-use licensed image of the subject via the commons:Commons:OTRS process, through attempting to contact her representatives/agents.
  6. External video -- I see three (3) External video boxes in main article body text, with a total of six (6) external links. Best to move these to External links sect, or at least trim them down to one box with maybe three (3) total links tops in main body text, otherwise starts to look a bit unencyclopedic.
  7. Overly large quote box in sect Music video performances -- they hate those at FAC, I'd strongly recommend getting rid of the entire quote box.
  8. And for that matter, I'd recommend getting rid of all quotes or as many quotes as possible and paraphrase instead.
  9. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. Duly noted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. I have just taken this to GA and DYK and intend to keep it up to date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. I am sort of here for a copy edit. I can tag this for WP:GOCE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    I have listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Emily_Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. The article seems stable. I am willing to revisit this when the movie goes to DVD and I can get clarification via Netflix.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. I have been in contact with both Ford Models and treats! to no avail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  6. Is there precedent at FAC regarding limitations on use of the external links template? I am not sure it is an improvement to move the links away from the text that discusses them or reduce the number of links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Removed half of the ELs from the prose section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  7. I think there should be one quotebox on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  8. I am not going to get rid of all quotes. I may consider trimming down any that seem more pointless than others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  9. Seems redundant with #1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Cirt, I was hoping you might have particular text issues that would require editorial response. I guess I misstated my intention with this PR. I also need as much editorial guidance as possible in pursuit of FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand, TonyTheTiger, but I'm a bit tired out after leaving comments at ten (10) peer reviews and also successfully clearing out the entire backlog of peer reviews at the moment. :) My above comments are simply suggestions and recommendations based on my own experiences at WP:FAC, of things that I think will help the article have an easier time at WP:FAC and gain WP:FA quality. — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Cirt in 2 weeks if no one else has commented on it, I may ask you to take a look at the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! You could also post to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a neutrally worded message asking for copy editors from previously uninvolved editors. Can't hurt, worth a try. — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have left notices at WT:BIOG, WT:ACTOR and WT:FASHION.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Try to get an image for her infobox if possible
  • "British-born American"..... English-born, let's be more specific since she was born in London
  • Much of the detail on "Blurred Lines" charting belongs on the song article, not here. Instead, include detail on Ratajkowski's role or at least focus more on the video itself.
    • The current prior content is "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom as well as the longest running Billboard Hot 100 number one song of the decade to date in the United States." What should account for the success in the following subsequent phrase "Following the success and controversy of 'Blurred Lines', she became a high profile sex symbol..."? At most I could see removing the phrase "including Canada and the United Kingdom"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I have shortened to "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries as well as the longest running Billboard Hot 100 number one song of the decade to date in the United States." If another song remains number one for 13 consecutive weeks, I will remove the latter half of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "recurring role on iCarly and, subsequent roles" has a stray comma that should be removed
Early life
  • Rather than give ages at the time of Ratajkowski's birth, it would be better to give birth years or approximations for when her parents were born
  • Mentioning her grandfather's religious affiliation isn't necessary, just say he was a Polish immigrant
  • No need to mention the "Polish Israeli" bit when it is already mentioned that she has Polish, Irish, and German heritage.
  • "In fact" is not very encyclopedic, so I'd remove this bit..... Is it even needed to mention she spent her summers in Ireland?
  • "Ratajkowski was quite comfortable with the naked body due to her background"..... awkward phrasing
  • "she frequented nude beaches"..... frequently visited
  • There should be quotes on what critics said of Ratajkowski's acting. The commentary on videos and her physique are nice to have, but those alone aren't enough.
  • The video EL's aren't really needed here
  • "After getting a lot of local youth acting experience"..... gaining local youth acting experience
  • "The earlier film roles were trivial enough"..... that phrasing isn't very encyclopedic
  • "Before she became well-known"..... famous
  • "As of 12 July 2014"..... you previously use month-day-year format, be consistent here
  • "As a curvaceous 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model"..... "curvaceous" is very POV and I'm not convinced it's the most encyclopedic term
    • We are a tertiary source responsible for summarizing and rephrasing secondary sources. This is from a secondary source paragrarph on the following topic (and I quote): "Emily sounds off on the curves that put her in a different class from runway models".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If possible, I'd try to get a free image of Ratajkowski.
  • In the image's caption, "large breasts" would be better than "big breasts"
  • "a statement about our society not having advanced as far as it should on all fronts"..... this is absolutely not a neutral statement
  • "being controversial for the nudity of its video"..... creating controversy
  • "In a separate interview for Complex, she said" → "Ratajkowski also told Complex"
  • "Additionally she said"..... needs a comma after "additionally"
  • "extensive critiquing"..... criticism
  • The charting detail on "Blurred Lines" again should be in the song's article rather than here. The video should be the focus instead.
    • First, the charting detail is at Blurred_Lines#Charts. This is a very concise summary of the most important elements of that detail to provide context. I feel you would likely agree that it means one the to say she was in a music video and another to say she was in a music video that was the number one song of the year in several countries.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd remove "controversial" from "her controversial performance" for neutrality sake
Personal life
  • The information on breast surgery rumors and Karaoke are trivial, and I'm concerned with the tone of "was not really noticed". Since this section is rather short and would be even more so without the fluff, I'm thinking scrap this section altogether and integrate her residence and relationship with Andrew Dryden into the "career" section along with "early life" into a "life and career" section.
    • You might be surprised how common it is for female biographies to include content refuting breast augmentation claims.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's my input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • SNUGGUMS Thanks. That is what I need. I will probably start with the footnotes since doing the other things first will make it hard to see what you are talking about because the order may change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Makes sense, and happy to help :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 October 2014, 12:40 UTC)----

R U Professional[edit]

R U Professional passed through multiple stages of review including AFD, DYK, and successful promotion to WP:GA quality. Looking for some helpful input on ways to further improve the article. Thanks for your time, — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Notices left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. While the lead should reflect a brief synopsis of the entire article, this one seems a bit detailed and overly long based on the length of the overall length of the article.
  2. I'd break the lead into 3 paragraphs , mirroring the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception. I'd drop the sentence about "In a statement, The Mae Shi...". You cover it in the body quite well.
  3. The current second lead paragraph has way too much detailed information, I'd simply cut it to three sentences, with no quotes, summarizing the response and mentioning a couple of the sources you use in the detail section.
  4. In the background section the 2nd and 3rd sentences are a weird transition, going from the actual event to the recording. Then the second paragraph begins a discussion about the already introduced recording.
  5. The Inspiration section is fine. The only issue was that you referenced 4 films, then use 5 quotes, I'd lose the quote which doesn't tie back into one of his films. Other than that, I like the section.
  6. In the Release section, the first paragraph: I'm not a Youtube aficionado, so I have no clue how impressive 145k hits in about 6 weeks is. I think this needs to be contextualized. The rest of the section is okay, but was the song universally praised, as this section makes it appear? Or were there folks who didn't like it? If so, those dissenting views should be included, if not, than give it the props it is due and say that it had no detractors. Also, there are terms used which should be explained (e.g. "poppy" dance song).
  7. Finally, if you could come up with 2 more images, it would balance the article out well. The two existing pics are good licensing wise. Onel5969 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to comments from Onel5969

  1. After responding to your other suggestion, lower in your above points, I added to the lede intro sect to summarize the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception. Actually the semi-automated review had previously said I needed to expand the WP:LEAD sect, so now I think it's better.
  2. Done.' I've broken the lead into 3 paragraphs , mirroring the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception.
  3. Done. I've dropped the sentence about "In a statement, The Mae Shi...".
  4. Done. I've cut out a bit from that paragraph, and went back over it to make sure there are no quotes.
  5. Done. I've re-arranged those sentences so there is a better transition there.
  6. Done. I've made it clearer why that other quote is in there, it shows that it ties back into one of his statements in his audio outburst.
  7. Done. I've trimmed the bit from the Release sect about the YouTube hits. I've also added some info from Irish Independent which is the closest I could find in all the sources to sort of relatively more negative critical. I've copy edited out the word cited above.
  8. Done. I've added 2 more images to the article to balance it out better.

Thanks very much to Onel5969 for these helpful suggestions, I think the article looks much better for them. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to automated tips

  1. This pertains to my responses to the semi-automated peer review recommendations.
  2. Done. The automated tips previously recommended to expand the lede intro sect per WP:LEAD, because previously it wasn't adequate to function as a full standalone summary of the entire article's contents. After I expanded the lede, the automated tips no longer suggest this, so it must've been an appropriate change.
  3. "If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one." -- I've added 2 free-use images to the article, itself, also echoed by comments from Onel5969, but I'm not sure an unrelated image would be appropriate for the infobox. Although if others feel differently we could for sure add an image of the various band members performing, into the infobox.
  4. "Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a." -- I've gone through and done a lot more copy editing. I've also nominated the article to be copy edited by the friendly people at WP:GOCE. I'll think about asking a few other specific editors, separate from the GOCE process, for additional copy editing help.
  5. "You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas." -- I'll take a look through there for other ideas.
  6. Checklinks: "Checklinks found 0 dead links out of a total of 28 links on 21 October 2014 at 00:24." -- Done.
  7. Dablinks: "No disambiguation links on R U Professional." -- Done.

That seems to be all for now from the automated tips department. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 October 2014, 19:18 UTC)----

I Could Fall in Love[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…it failed its last FAC and it would be helpful to know if it needs more work before renominating.

Thanks, .jonatalk 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by esprit15d[edit]

It's a strong article, and I congratulate you on the work you've done so far. Some comments/suggestions:

  • In the second paragraph of "Background and release," there should be a reference behind each sentence, even if the reference is redundant to surrounding sentences.
  • Is it known (can it be included) on which day she recorded the song? If we know (we may not) it would contribute to the timeline of her subsequent murder.
  • I'm at a loss as to the value of this sentence: "Fred Bronson of Billboard commented that if EMI Latin had released "I Could Fall in Love" as a single and it had debuted in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100 chart, then it would have been the first posthumous debut single to do so since "Pledging My Love" by Johnny Ace in 1955." Purely speculative, and a bit fannish. The reality is they didn't, and if they did, we have no idea how it would have performed.
  • I would move this sentence to the "Reviews" section: "Mario Tarradell, an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, called the song a "mundane ballad"."
  • The term "I Could Fall in Love" appears to often in the body text (58 times!), sometimes several sentences in a row, or in the same sentence. Pronouns and epithets should be used sometimes, for example: "the song," "the tune," "the ballad," or good-ole-fashioned, "it."
  • In the "Reviews" section, quotes within quotes should use single quotation marks. So, random example, "Sally said that the song 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star' was her favorite."
  • The last paragraph in "Composition and lyrics" is mostly original research (meaning whoever wrote that paragraph listened to the song, then interpreted the lyrics), and even the parts that are referenced don't make it clear in the actual text who holds these opinions. Writing these analysis sections are some of the hardest things to do at Wikipedia, so I feel your (or whoever wrote it) pain, but keep a couple things in mind to make it easier: (1) Wikipedia has NO OPINIONS about anything. Not even "obvious" things. Not even about Hitler. Not even about cute babies. Neutral about everything. So if you read a sentence and it's a naked opinion, it's already wrong. (2) EVERY OPINION in Wikipedia has to be, not only referenced, but openly attributed to someone, and someone reputable and/or notable. (See policy WP:SUBJECTIVE). "XYZ critic said the song was about this." "Television show made this comment." "XYZ movie character said this, prompting the public to react this way ." "The lyrics say this" (but without any explanation). See if you can find what the author of the song had to say about it's meaning. The first few sentences of that section are the worst offenders, but the whole paragraph needs rewriting. The critical reception section is a much better example.
  • I think the Music video section could be expanded, perhaps with information about its development, direction, production, etc... Could you add a screencap of the video?
  • Remove the redlink from the "Covers" section.
  • The "Books" section should be called "Further reading."
  • Remove the link to Metro Lyrics, since it's a copyright violation. See if you can find the lyrics at a site that owns copyright, like Selena's site, the site for the movie soundtrack, or the label's site.

Great job, keep up the good work, and I hope this review has been helpful!Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 October 2014, 18:45 UTC)----

Freedom Planet[edit]

Freedom Planet is what you'd get if that quiet emo kid you sat next to in Trigonometry, who never stopped drawing Sonic characters and anime dragons on his or her assignments and wore the same beat-up Chiodos T-shirt every other day, suddenly got serious after high school and decided game development was what he or she wanted to do. I got the demo back circa February or March and picked up the full game on release day, and I recently put it fourth on a Facebook list of my top ten games of all time - no regrets whatsoever. Despite the occasionally cheesy voice acting and writing, I find it rather sweet and adorable - as well as highly replayable and invigorating. Now, what I want is for the game's article to reflect this esteem as much as possible via a successful FA nomination, so drop a few thoughts here if you don't mind.

Oh, and I know the Reception section has zero organization; I'm just endlessly waiting for some kind of feedback on a few sources - the discussion's at WT:VG/RS if you're interested in helping! - before I rewrite that, so I know what exactly it is I'll be working with. Don't let that distract you; there may well be plenty else to critique.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Right, here's my two bits. I may come back and find something else, but this is what I can see from a cursory glance.

  • One gameplay image and some concept art I can understand, but there are two gameplay images that don't seem to show enough unique functions to justify both their uses (unlike Drakengard, which really did need two images), an image in the plot section displaying something that could just as easily be described with text alone and two pieces of concept art for the game in the same section, which seems a little excessive. Also, the concept art does not seem to relate to any of the characters described in the text.
  • Thanks for keeping a watch out for that. In this case, know that every image in the article is freely licensed; Strife was generous enough to license the entire press kit + the one screenshot and coverart that were already in the article under CC, so I think the current set of images does a nice job of illustrating various aspects of the game. The two concept art images are of Torque and Brevon, probably the two most major characters who aren't playable. (Torque's the alien Fourth Jonas Brother who flies planes and gets kidnapped; Brevon is the bad guy.) I wanted to put them in one single thumbnail, but wasn't sure how to do that. (There's also concept art of a few other characters, like Mayor Zao and Neera, but I thought that'd be going a little overboard.) Tezero (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "As a result of pervasive similarities in the fast-paced gameplay, aesthetics, and level design, including Freedom Planet has been frequently compared to the Sonic the Hedgehog games released for the Sega Genesis in the early 1990s.[1][2][3][4][6]" - Two things in this sentence: 'pervasive' seems a little negative for a neutral Wikipedia article as it isn't part of a quote, and the word 'including' seems superfluous.
  • Changed to "wide-ranging"; see if that's better. (Probably worth noting that critics have actually generally loved the Genesis Sonic similarities, but hey.) As for "including", I don't know how that got there; I certainly didn't add it. (There were two spaces after it, too, which is an anti-Tezero calling card.) Tezero (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Shortly before that date, it was delayed again to July 19 to escape competition from heavily discounted games at Steam's Summer Sale and to be promoted at a convention in Miami, Florida." - the grammar in this sentence seems a little suspect to me. The main thing that shouted out at me was "at Steam's Summer Sale". Wouldn't "in Steam's Summer Sale" be better? But I leave that up to your judgement.
  • It's fine. Changed. Tezero (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As to Reception, I can have a look around.

That's what I saw with a cursory glance. May be back for some more detailed stuff. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 October 2014, 04:40 UTC)----

Triumph International[edit]

Is the topic large enough in scope/sources to qualify for FA? If so, what improvements are still needed to make it worthy of an FA nomination? CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 15 October 2014, 14:42 UTC)----

Meg White[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I working on getting all the White Stripes related articles at least to good article quality. I realize this article is not quite there, but I've made strides to add sources and flesh out the complete story of her career, and since I am pretty much the only editor working on the article (other than the occasional bot) I would like a second (third, fourth...) set of eyes to weigh in on weak areas.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with dead links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Specifically, 2nd and 4th paragraphs are a bit skimpy.
  4. 3 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
  5. Plot summary looks a tad bit skimpy, could be expanded a bit more, perhaps one more paragraph.
  6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
  7. References sect combines both harv citation notes and full references in same sect. Recommend splitting into 2 sects, Notes and then References, per models at WP:FAs including: The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
  8. I see two citation needed tags in article.
  9. 6th paragraph of The White Stripes sect has uncited sentence at end of paragraph, as well as the citation needed tag.
  10. Other work sect has lots of uncited sentences and facts with no sources cited.
  11. Personal life sect has uncited material in 1st paragraph of sect.
  12. Strongly recommend removing quote box from Personal life sect -- they don't like those at WP:FAC.
  13. Equipment sect, suggest blending into main article body text in chronological order instead of in this sect.
  14. Equipment sect, 1st paragraph in this sect has lots of uncited material and facts with no sources cited.
  15. Awards and nominations -- BIG PROBLEM HERE. This entire sect is unsourced at present.
  16. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 October 2014, 17:23 UTC)----

Meineke Car Care Center[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I posted suggested changes to this page, which is currently flagged for inadequate citations, to its Talk page on 9/9/14. I have disclosed a COI (someone connected to the company asked if I could clean up the page). Because of the COI and because the edits are extensive, I would like to have my edit request on the Meineke Care Care Center Talk Page reviewed so changes can be made to take care of the verification issues.

Thanks, HollyQ (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@HollyQ:It looks like the request you made was already moved into main article space 5 days after you started this peer review and marked as "done" on the article's talk page diff, so are you all set now? — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 October 2014, 16:20 UTC)----

Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, and want to get out any obvious flaws ahead of that. It made GA two months ago, and had a thorough copy edit.

Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Some observations:
  • I believe Khan sang in Chakde! India ("Ek Hockey Doongi Rakh Ke"), Don ("Khaike Paan Banaraswala"), Mohabbatein ("Aankhen Khuli"), Baadshah ("Main To Hoon Pagal"). Some of these songs were quite successful, I think. Don't you want to have something on that?
Are you sure that he sang, or was it more like talking/rapping. Is this very important, since you are already talking about the length? BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • His career as a producer is strewn all over the article and it is very difficult to figure that part out. Can you streamline that part somewhat?
There once was a producing section, but it seemed to duplicate info already spread throughout, so it was removed. Since he usually stars in the films he produces, it would be hard to mention those films only in a separate production section. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is way too long - over 100 KB prose and 8,000 words. Check WP:SIZERULE. There are a few things that can be done:
    • Shorten long sentences. Example: "1996 was a disappointing year for Khan because the four films he appeared in were critical and commercial disappointments." > "In 1996, all four of Shahrukh Khan releases flopped critically and commercially."
    • Make the prose a little less verbose would also help in places. Example: "disowns him for marrying a girl (Kajol) belonging to a lower socio-economic group than his family" > "disowns him for marrying a poor girl (Kajol)".
    • Eliminate some stuff that are trivial in comparison with the big and important information. Example: "After the release of the film, Khan took a six-month break from acting, during which he said he "just enjoyed the feeling of being sad"."
  • The two section - Artistry and Wealth and popularity. Why do you need entire sections for these? It is well understood that any major film star from any major film industry would have some artistry, wealth and popularity (unless there is seriously different story to tell). That part is already covered in the body of article, and whatever is necessary, though there can't be much essential stuff in these two sections, to keep can be integrated into the rest of the article.
More forthcoming. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is really not what I was hoping to hear. I am about to add more info, particularly in the early life section, since I got a copy of Chopra's book. There is just a lot to say about the world's biggest movie star. Its going to be hard to trim, but I will try, particularly in the sections that you mentioned. My previous FA Priyanka Chopra, was accepted with 7798 words, compared to this one currently at 8628. Let's see what others have to say. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that there is duplicate information in the Artistry section. I can probably make that one go away, but some of it will get integrated elsewhere, and the article will still be very long. We have already split off his filmography and awards into their own articles. Is there a precedent for splitting even further? One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, and I would hate to throw away good material. BollyJeff | talk 13:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Even without deleting important information, it is possible to reduce word count in this article, as Aditya exemplified. Why 2011-2013 section is named major commercial success? He already had major major commercial success. What is different in 2011-2013? Mere numbers (100 crores) do not make these films significantly more successful, DDLJ is more succesful than a Chennai Express despite perhaps earning less.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It was already copy edited to make it more tight, but I will look for further examples like those. I may also reduce the content in the career section by not covering so many films. What do you think? Also, I am open to ideas for renaming the later career sections. BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Jackie Chan is 5,000 words long, while Peter Sellers has 10,000 words. Article length is subjective. But, I assume that you are planning to make this article as excellent as possible. And, at that it could reduce verbosity and redundancy, which are enlarging it needlessly. My two paisa there.
Have you given any thought to making his producing career more accessible? That part of his story is still strewn all over the article in between long narrations on his acting career. Not very accessible.
I already posed the question above: How to do this without adding more redundant info? In Shah Rukh Khan filmography it notes which films he produced in the table and footnote. Here is what the producer section used to look like: [3]. Is that good? BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
And, the songs. I believe he sang for the movies, and some of the songs became quite popular.
I cannot find reliable sources for these, can you?
Perhaps you can also consider a bit of his modelling career. I did walk for Lakme Fashion Week and so on. Right?
And, probably a bit on his estate. He owns a lot of stuff - property, luxuries, companies, cricket teams and so on.
Already there.
More forthcoming. Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else? BollyJeff | talk 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 October 2014, 01:08 UTC)----

Katrina Kaif[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently failed its GA review. Since the review, I have edited the article to try and fix the main issues (that a lot of the sentences are too long (with too many colons) and that the article comes off as too hagiographic). Anyways, I'd like to get some opinions on the article, so that I can get it to GA, or even FA status.

Thanks :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 12:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997

As far as sources are concerned, the article looks pretty good. I have read the 2 GA reviews.

  • It needs a little effort to deal with the POV issues. Too many quotes have been used. Either trim them or paraphrase a few.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I've cut a few more quotes here. Tell me what you think. Also, you've asked for the page for one of the sources. If you click on the link and go to the Google Book, there are no page numbers. What should I do about that? AB01 I'M A POTATO 12:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The page number is 2011. Change the link accordingly. The book's title is Mother Maiden Mistress. Is there any particular reason for using "1950-2010" at the end?--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Done AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Add that Manish Arora opined that she was the "most sensuous rampwalker" and the source supporting it. I'm new to review process and not in a position to pass judgements on what quotes must stay but this one looks important.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it might be good to leave it out, cos of the POV issue AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 October 2014, 12:43 UTC)----

John Johnson (footballer)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to make it to the FA.

Thanks, RRD13 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
  4. 2 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
  5. Appears to be well cited throughout with very good use of in-line citations.
  6. 5 uses of direct quotations from sources. Consider removing all or some of these and paraphrasing, instead. You'll have an easier time at FAC that way, trust me.
  7. Style of play sect, not the best title for this sect, perhaps just Commentary or Analysis. Because the sect is only about secondary source commentary.
  8. Honours sect, entire sect appears to be uncited.
  9. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Generally very good looking - neat structure and well cited.
  3. A WP on referencing (can't find the name immediately) recommended the use of one these formats in citations: YYYY-MM-DD or abbreviation into three letters of the month, so "21 January 2014" would become either "2014-01-21" or "21 Jan 2014".
  4. If applicable, also mention the author in the citation with the parameters "|first=" and "|last=" or "|author=".
  5. Perhaps a line on personal life? This is no must of course, it would be merely illustrative.
  6. In the Style of play section, in the first sentence the word "but" seems needless.
  7. Use of less direct quotations from sources, as already mentioned.
  8. Perhaps in the "External links" section you can also refer to other websites considered reliable regarding soccer statistics, like Soccerway or National Football Teams.
  9. Copy the citations regarding the honours used in the text to the "Honours" section. I just got aware that I will have to do the same in my article undergoing Peer Review.
  10. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Good luck! Please also take a look at my football-related Peer Review, Kareldorado (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 October 2014, 10:37 UTC)----

Beau Ideal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done quite a bit of work on it. Being an older, lesser known, film, the research was somewhat difficult, but incredibly enjoyable. I'm very interested to know what others think of it, and how it can be improved to be taken to either a GA or FA status.

Thanks, Onel5969 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
  4. 6 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
  5. Plot summary looks a tad bit skimpy, could be expanded a bit more, perhaps one more paragraph.
  6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
  7. Notes sect is awkwardly titled. Notes title for header of sect generally means footnotes or citations, not body prose text. All the info in that sect should be moved into Production sect.
  8. Try to find more sourced info to expand Production sect and Reception sect. Then, perhaps break up Production sect into a few smaller sub sects within larger Production sect.
  9. Useful reading at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Style guidelines/Copy-editing essentials
  10. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Cirt's Comments
  1. Okay.
  2. Absolutely. I began using the wayback machine after I created this article, so I hadn't used it yet. Will definitely go back through and archive all the ones I can (some can't be archived).
  3. Will do.
  4. Not sure what you mean by all fields filled in. I have done the licensing checks, though.
  5. I'll fill it out a bit.
  6. Again, will do.
  7. Not sure what to do here. Some of the information, in my opinion shouldn't be in the production section, since it is peripherally related to the film, but not production-related. I took the "Notes" heading from another article a few months ago. Perhaps per the film style guidelines (which you reference above), I'll call it trivia. I'll move what I can.
  8. I pretty much exhausted the online source material on this film. I went through about 30 film fan and trade publications, and included every pertinent fact (didn't want to get too trivial). I think this is a limiting factor in many of these old films, can't really do much about this.
  9. Thanks. Will keep this in mind.
  10. Okay.
  11. Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time. Will be coming right back at you regarding RU Professional. Onel5969 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Anything rather than calling that sect header Notes would be better, as that implies citations. Suggest you look for more sources in archival databases including NewsBank, LexisNexis, InfoTrac, and Westlaw. Also may want to search lots of books for more info. Could try asking for your local reference librarian at your local library for help. — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 October 2014, 22:34 UTC)----

Alanis Morissette[edit]

Previous peer review

I'm submitting this article for a peer review request because I would like to hear others' opinions on how to take this article to the next grade up and eventually make it to a FAC someday. Thanks, Turn➦ 08:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff
  • I see a lot of sources in the lead. It is better if the lead is a summary of the article text, and most of the sources are there instead.
  • There are too many one line paragraphs, making it look like a bullet list in some places. Try to add some more info, group related things together, and make it flow more like a story.
  • Some larger paragraphs appear to be totally unsourced.
  • Sometimes sources appear in the middle, rather than the end of the paragraph, making it appear as though the second part is unsourced, which it may or may not be, but that's the impression you get when scanning it.
  • The last external link seems to not even be about her. In any event, reviews are better off incorporated into the article.

(Peer review added on Friday 3 October 2014, 08:27 UTC)----

Geography and places[edit]

Brown County State Park[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to GA. This is Indiana's largest state park, and it deserves better than Start-Class.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have little experience with Geography articles, but in the assumption that every tiny bit might help:

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Generally very, very good looking - neat structure, well cited and beautifully illustrated. In my humble opinion, the article class can easily jump to B-class and GA is within close reach.
  3. Credit to whom it is due, nice pictures by Diego Delso, but there is not really a need to mention him below the pictures.
  4. Tiny detail: I would use the larger dash (–) between numbers or years, and small dash (-) within words.
  5. Below the heading "Activities" I would write a summarizing sentence mentioning that the park allows for mountain biking, fishing, hiking and horse riding.

Great job so far and good luck! Please also take a look at my Peer Review, Kareldorado (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking at the Brown County State Park article. I will make the suggested changes (4 and 5) on Saturday when I have more time. For item number 3: one of the conditions for using the pictures by Diego Delso is that he must be credited. I am not a fan of using pictures where the author must be credited, but his pictures were the best—and I now live too far away to take my own pictures. If you are certain that I do not need to credit him, please confirm that.TwoScars (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 October 2014, 17:12 UTC)----

Caldas da Rainha[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…it was promoted to Good Article this week. I believe that it is not far from Featured Article quality. I received much good feedback in the GAN process, but I think another set of eyes before I submit to FAC will be beneficial. Looking for any major red flags or showstoppers that have been missed. All constructive suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 October 2014, 03:52 UTC)----

Buffalo, New York[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because...

I'd like tips on how to get the article to GA status and also tips on improving sources/current article references.

Thanks, Dekema2 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time so far, and I'm interested in hear suggestions on what can be fixed and improved. Your history in the area should undoubtedly help while I know you do have a track record of improving articles. While I've spent all of my pre-college life in the area, now that I'm a semi-ex Buffalonian, I'll do my best to listen and make improvements. --Dekema2 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I see the tags at the top of the article. I will want at least one WP:IC from a WP:RS for every paragraph. If we can't provide any for a paragraph that content will have to be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
When I do that, I'll mark this as done. --Dekema2 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the way the LEAD reads, but I don't think it actually summarized the article. Generally, I like to see a summary of each section in the LEAD. However, we want to keep this to 3000-3200 characters of readable prose. The lead is currently 2224 characters of readable prose so we have some room to play with. We can revisit this once I have run through the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You can go right ahead so when I add new references, I'll be able to quickly go back and change to them. --Dekema2 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
During the Talk:Buffalo, New York/GA1, I mentioned that the article had 46 entire paragraphs without ICs. I should not have to go through and point them out now 5 weeks later. You should have attempted to fix this before even coming to WP:PR. However, I will tag up the article as I review it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I remember that, I could've added just some before opening this up. However, these {{fact}} tags will help because I might've overlooked them regardless. This week I will find time to look for WP:RS around the web. --Dekema2 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I've started adding references, do you have an idea offhand if they are reliable? That's one issue I have with them. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It is up to you to develop an understanding of WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick question: how are links that use the Wayback machine typically looked at as far as WP:RS is concerned? --Dekema2 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 October 2014, 02:23 UTC)----


Leo Frank[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done significant amounts of research into the Leo Frank case and while he is not particularly well known, his murder trial led to the formation of the Anti-Defamation League and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1910s.

This article is currently B-class and I want to get a picture of what it needs for GA quality. In particular, I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent in their format. Any other content or general advice is also welcome.

Thanks, Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 October 2014, 04:28 UTC)----

Ellen Wilkinson[edit]

A sparky, slightly bumptious politician who shone very brightly in the drab political years between the world wars, Ellen Wilkinson enjoyed a brief period of power as Britain's Minister of Education, 1945–47, before her premature death. She was only the second woman, after Margaret Bondfield, to sit in a British cabinet—and rather outshone her stolid predecessor. She first become widely known in 1936 when, as MP for Jarrow, she led the famous Jarrow march to London, to petition the government to bring work to the devastated town. A hive of energy, when she wasn't actively politicking she wrote novels, pamphlets, helped to found UNESCO and (possibly) conducted a long-term affair with Herbert Morrison. I'd be glad of any comments, suggestions etc. While the review proceeds I will be paying some attention to the main Jarrow march article, which is a little inadequate at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Cliftonian[edit]

Very strong and engaging work here, I thoroughly reading it. I had never heard of Wilkinson. I made a few minor tweaks during my readthrough but nothing major. Here are some other thoughts I hope will help.

  • "Suffrage Pilgrimage... when more than 50,000 women marched to a mass rally in London's Hyde Park" from where?
  • From all over the country – clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Where we introduce the Profintern, perhaps rephrase slightly to "often known by the Russian abbreviation "Profintern"" or similar (some readers may not be aware of its provenence)
  • I don't have the source for the origin of the abbreviation, but it is surely English, not Russian – the intern bit = "international". I don't think we need further explanation here; the linked article should do for readers especially interested in this organisation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough. "Intern" is from Russian though; the Soviets used the word "internatsionale", taken from French, as a noun to describe international unions like this. The 2nd International for example is in Russian the "vtoriy internatsionale" if I recall correctly from school. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks - your education was better than mine (and certainly more recent!). Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We refer to Wilkinson promoting "Russian achievements" and saying "the Russian people" could look forward with hope. She may well have said "Russian", but I think she would have meant the Soviets as a whole, no? If I recall correctly the USSR wasn't quite formed yet at this stage but a few of the Soviet republics were already there.
  • The Soviet Union was proclaimed in December 1922, a month after the quoted speech. I have to go by the source, which specifically refers to "Russia". People continued to use "Russia" as shorthand for the USSR for decades, right up to the Union's collapse in 1991. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "striking colours of her hair and clothing" what was striking about them?
  • We refer to Jawaharlal Nehru simply as an "Indian leader" but so far as I'm aware he didn't hold any office at the time (the "Indian leader" wording could taken to imply he was part of the Raj authorities). Perhaps better to call him an "Indian nationalist leader" or "Indian pro-independence leader" or something like that?
  • we say "over the age of 21" but I think we mean "aged 21 or older"
  • You are absolutely right - done.
  • In the 1929 election, did the Tories or Libs have any women elected? I guess not since we don't mention any. If not, perhaps put "260 and 59 respectively (all men)."
  • There were certainly a few Conservative women – Lady Astor and the Duchess of Atholl, maybe one or two more. There was Megan Lloyd George on the Liberal side. But I don't think such information is required in the text. If I can find a proper source, I'll add the details in a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We refer to "the autumn of 1929", but I believe it is better to avoid unqualified references to seasons like this as to readers in the southern hemisphere autumn is February–March. Perhaps "late 1929" or similar?
  • "she approved the conscription of women into the Auxiliary Fire Service for fire-watching duty, a policy that provoked considerable opposition" opposition from whom? the women being drafted or others?
  • From women generally. I will expand this a little, to clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers and thank you for the education and the good read. Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments – most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]


  • Not a big deal, but is there a way to avoid the repetition of "women's suffrage" in consecutive sentences?
  • "Following her defeat at Middlesbrough in 1931, Wilkinson became a prolific journalist and writer, before returning to parliament as Jarrow's MP in 1935": My instinct would be to split this sentence but again, not a big deal at all.
  • Would "comprehensive schools" be better linked to Comprehensive school (England and Wales)?
  • Will everyone realise, particularly non-UK readers, that a "bitter winter" is a cold one, rather than a resentful or argumentative one?

Background, childhood and education

  • "She was soon struck down by a series of childhood illnesses that kept her at home for two years, where she learned to read": Not sure about "where she learned to read" here; maybe better in a different place? Or maybe "when she learned to read"?
  • "Her individualistic approach to classroom teaching led to frequent clashes with head teachers and school inspectors": Some examples might illustrate the point, as I'm left wondering what she might have done!
  • We don't seem to have a link to women's suffrage, here or in the lead. Nor is it explained. I think one or the other is needed.

Down to the end of Middlesborough MP so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Out of parliament

  • "Meantime, her parliamentary prospects had been revived by her selection as Labour candidate for Jarrow, a Tyneside shipbuilding town": To me, meantime does not sound right here. Maybe it's just me. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments and suggestions. I have dealt with them all, except for the sentence-splitting, which did not read well when I tried it. I look forward to anything else you have to add. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Postwar career

  • " Emmanuel Shinwell, just appointed Minister of Fuel and Power, commented that "it is not bad tactics to make one's enemies one's servants".": Another minor point, but was the comment made at the time or afterwards? If the former, it was rather a pointed comment!
  • He wrote the comment in 1966. I have slightly altered the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "and more recently had collapsed during a visit to Prague, in 1946.": I think we could lose "more recently had" from this sentence.
  • I wonder if some of the note giving potential reasons for a possible suicide should be moved to the main body. Also, these seem pretty flimsy reasons for supposing suicide. Was there anything else, as some people seemed to give credence to it?
  • Not much else at all, apart from gossip. But I think you're right – a little more info in the main text is desirable. I have ditched the nfootnote. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


  • "National Government": I notice that this is not linked in the text; this may be worth doing. Also, it might be worth adding a sentence saying how long it survived.
  • Now linked at first mention, in the "1929–31" section. I have also clarified that the National Government ended when Churchill formed his wartime coalition in 1940. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Although not an image expert, I spot one little image issue. The FU image of Wilkinson has a licence which refers to Imogen Holst!
  • Wow, that as careless! Fixed now Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing else jumps out from this very readable and interesting account. Nice work as always. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, many thanks for these suggestions, all covered now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Nicely put together—as always—and (again as always) it's a struggle to find too much to comment on. A few minor corrections made; feel free to revert anything you don't like.

Early years

  • " classroom teaching led to frequent clashes with head teachers and school inspectors, and convinced her that her future did not lie in teaching": there's a lot of "teach" in there, perhaps "her future did not lie in the profession" would suffice?


  • "same year Wilkinson co-sponsored": I think "she" would work as well

International and domestic concerns

  • "and Philip Noel-Baker": To avoid popping away to another page, perhaps a descriptor on the worthy gent?


  • Note 1: I think I'm right in saying the date format is wrong here and should be 1911–52, not 1911–1952; feel free to ignore me on this if you know better

That's it from me: all very interesting, and a delightful read to boot. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for these points, all attended to (I'm impressed that you read the footnotes!) Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

First lot, to the end of the Jarrow March section:

  • Early years
    • "she was impatient with religion, and socialism" – the comma notwithstanding, my eye initially took this in as saying she was impatient with socialism as well as religion. Careless reading on my part, I admit, but it might be prudent to replace the "and" with a semicolon.
    • "leaflet distribution and putting up posters" – I think this might flow better if you used a participle for both halves: "distributing leaflets and putting up posters". Just a thought.
  • University
    • "many of the contemporary leaders on the radical left: the veteran … Sidney Webb" – two things here. First, shouldn't "on" be "of"? Secondly, the colon implies that the four people named were the only leaders of the left. Perhaps "including" rather than the colon? Or "many contemporary leaders..."?
  • Trade union organiser
    • "in London's Hyde Park" – it may just be me, but this construction always seems a bit tabloidese, as opposed to "in Hyde Park, London".
    • "her connection with the WIL, and its WIL conference adopted…" – you don't need the second WIL, I think.
    • "actions in Ireland" – "actions there" would avoid the repetition of "Ireland" in the one sentence.
  • Communism
    • Growing up Into Revolution – in the sources, below, you capitalise this title differently.
  • In opposition, 1924–29
    • "the striking colours of her hair and clothing" – we can take the clothing on trust, but you might add that she was a flaming redhead or platinum blonde or whatever she was.
      • Point raised by an earlier reviewer, and amended accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "Harrison acknowledges" – This is the first mention of Harrison, and a phrase of introduction to him would be welcome.
  • Out of parliament, 1931–35
    • Did the tract Why Fascism not have a question mark at the end?
    • "benefitted" – one of my little obsessions: "focused", "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited".
  • Jarrow March
    • " met Runciman to protest the decision" – and when are you getting your US passport? In English usage you need "against" after "protest".
    • [Hensley Henson, the Bishop of Durham – I have him on my to-do list. A strange mixture of a man. His anti-trade-union sentiments were positively phobic.]

More anon. I'll be travelling for most of tomorrow (Lake District) but will have web access there and will look in again on Thursday if not before. Tim riley talk 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these observations. I have dealt with them all, and look forward to your further wisdom in due course. I shall be most interested to read your take on Henson. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Second and concluding batch from Tim
  • Second World War
    • "disapproved the measure" – missing "of" after "disapproved", I think.
    • "and approved the wartime legislation" – this means, surely, that she exercised the power to authorise the legislation, which I don't think a junior minister could have done. I think you want "approved of …" or "supported" here.
    • "became vice-chair of the party's National Executive" – I bet she didn't. I'll lay five bob she became vice-chairman. Certainly The Times (27 Jan 1944, p. 2) records her as becoming chairman in place of the late G Ridley the following year.
    • I won't risk the 5 bob, and I've made the change you suggest. In my defence, though, the Bartley source says she became "vice-chair". Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Minister of Education
    • "to achieve cabinet rank in the British government" – you may need to be a bit careful with this phrase. In 1945, as in earlier and later administrations, some ministers are described as "of cabinet rank" without being in the cabinet (see The Times, 6 Aug 1945, p. 2). Sounds rather daft, but I just mention it in case the distinction is relevant because there was (if there ever was) an earlier female minister "of cabinet rank" not in the cabinet of the time.
    • Apart from Bonders, no other woman had previously occupied a position in the cabinet or of cabinet rank outside it, but I have tweaked the phrase. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Appraisal and legacy
    • "ambition and pragmatism enabled her to temper her earlier Marxism and militancy" – "enabled" strikes a faintly wrong note; something like "caused" or "led" would seem to me more natural.
    • "she believed that, in the final analysis" – there's a touch of Sir Humphrey about this ("looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another, in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other") and I think it would be better to say, "she believed that parliamentary democracy offered a better route to social progress than any other".
  • Missing OCLCs:
    • The Division Bell Mystery = 504369261
    • The Road to Success = 504641202
    • Growing Up Into Revolution = 626722

I enjoyed this article greatly. You have a rare talent for winkling out interesting women and bringing them to life on the page (Gibbons, Smith and Bondfield among recent examples). Super stuff! Now I'm off to scrutinise what you've said about my Poulenc efforts. – Tim riley talk 14:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe all the necessary fixes are done, and again my thanks to you for your helpful suggestions (and OCLC additions). And now, like you, I will hie me to Poulenc, where I will finish my review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Comment Riveting. A fine depiction. A few comments.

  • Why some start/ends of office are years only is not clear to me. Wouldn't some of this be available by consulting articles on those who entered Parliament with her, say?
  • I have regulated the presentation of dates. Those relating to her terms as MP for Middlesbrough and for Jarrow are the dates of general elections. Strictly speaking, MPs cease to hold office on dissolution of parliament, usually about three weeks before the election, and if re-elected resume when retaking the oath a few days after the election. But to avoid lots of explanation irrelevant to this article, I think the actual election dates will suffice
  • I might cut the comma in the opening sentence.
  • "poor but aspirational" The "aspirational" is a stopper, which the reader is likely to puzzle over. What about "ambitious"?
Early etc.
  • "self-educated, he ensured that his children received the best education" can the "education" be changed to "schooling" to avoid the near-repeat?
  • "struck down". That tends to get used in American English as something far more drastic (death, perhaps, or in sports out for the season). Afflicted?
  • The word "university" occurs three times in close succession in the first part of the first paragraph (plus the title of the section). Surely the second one in the text can be changed from "At the university," to "There,"
  • "In her final year at the university" I would think "the" could be safely deleted.
Early career
  • "the university". Same comment.
  • "her connection with the WIL, and its WIL conference adopted a non-pacifist stance that justified armed struggle as a means of defeating capitalism" Can the WIL be reduced? Additionally, a date here would be helpful, as it occurs between a description of 1917 (First World War) and 1920 (conflict in Ireland). Or if they're talking about what was going on in Russia, or what.
  • Yes, the second WIL was a mis-typing, it should have been the year (1919). Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • " at that time the CPGB was not a proscribed organisation, and dual CPGB/Labour memberships were accepted." This is a bit unclear to me. Accepted by whom? The people with the power to proscribe or other people? This should also be made clear in the following section, where you refer to the Labour Party doing proscribing, but I'm not clear on whether you refer to the party, or the government led by the party.
Seeking elective
  • I think you should make it clear she lost in Ashton at the 1923 election. You refer to Baldwin calling it in December 1923, that might lead the reader to believe that after the usual shenanigans, the election took place in 1924, which of course is a different election. Possibly you should say that Baldwin called the election for December 1923 and make it clear at some point that Parliament didn't meet until the following year.
  • "After this," vague. "After making this statement"?
  • "related to the striking colours of her hair and clothing." I think you're going to have to give the reader some explanation here.
  • Other reviewers have said the same - I have added explanatory detail. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of Parliament
  • I am devastated not to have a description of Nev! (no action, though I'd appreciate the quote)
  • I don't know if Nev was included in Peeps. (She certainly went for him later!) Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • " documented early incidences" incidents?
  • Did Wilkinson speak in the debate in which Runciman made those comments? Or in presenting the petition to the H of C?
  • There was not a debate as such – I have amended the wording to "brief discussion". The entire discussion is available by clicking on the citation 118; you will see that Wilkinson asked a technical question, Baldwin replied, another member asked a supplementary to which Runcimn gave his "much improved" reply, at which Chuter Ede accused him of complacency. There were a few more questions, but no fiery speeches. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "she said of Chamberlain's actions" you have not previously mentioned the individual.
  • "In 1937 Wilkinson was ... Hire Purchase Act 1938." I would establish this as a paragraph immediately prior to the one on appeasement. The remaining material builds up to the war well, if you do that, in my view.
  • I have reorganised the material, and transferred a sentence back to the Jarrow section, to maintain the momentum towards war. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "the king's invitation to form a government" the incumbent should get a pipe.
  • "was to secure the raising of the school leaving age by 1 April 1947" this is, I gather, simply what the law required, or is there significance to the 1 April date? Was it earlier than required to keep more children in school?
  • The date was set by the 1944 act, but few thought it was achievable, hence the refs to parliamentary scepticism. Wilkinson was determined that the date be met, and stuck to her guns, finally getting cabinet backing in January 1947. I have rejigged the paragraph to make the position clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Town that was Murdered" this is capped differently in the list of works--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all these comments, which subject to my comments have been adopted into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 October 2014, 22:19 UTC)----

Mary Dyer[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to elevate it to featured status

Thanks, Sarnold17 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 19 October 2014, 01:05 UTC)----

Warsaw Uprising (1794)[edit]

Previous peer review

The article used to be a Featured Article since 2006. However, with time Wikipedia grew more serious and the referencing style used in the article quickly became obsolete. In 2009 the article was demoted, mainly due to insufficient in-line citations. As the original author of most of this article I recently decided to update it and perhaps improve it back to FA status.

In October 2014 I completely revamped the referencing system, added plenty of in-line citations, added additional references to statements that could raise concerns, applied various MoS fixes, added OCLC numbers to pre-ISBN refs and so on. However, since most of the article was written almost a decade ago, it might need some more love. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be highly appreciated.

Thanks, //Halibutt 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

I'm approaching this as someone with almost no background in Eastern European history. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.

  1. What ENGVAR is this written in? I see "radicalisation" and "organizing", and both "center" and "centre", "maneuvers"...
  2. You don't need {{en icon}} for the English sources—it's assumed they're in English unless otherwise noted.
  3. Alt text would be nice for the images
  4. You might want to look into {{sfnm}} and {{efn}} (not neccessaary—just a suggestion)
  5. Did you know that when you specify "|ref= harv" that you can use {{sfn}}s like {{sfn|Pistor|Prawdzic-Chotomski|p=37}} instead of {{sfn|Pistor & Prawdzic-Chotomski|p=37}}?
  6. Times of day should be in figures rather than words per WP:MOSTIME; also, it's not clear whether the times are in the morning or afternoon
  7. Sometimes there's "toward" and sometimes "toward"—should settle on one
  8. Uncited material needs to be cited:
    1. However, all the Russian assaults were repelled with heavy losses on both sides and the Poles started a counter-attack towards the Russian positions at Miodowa, Senatorska, Leszno and Podwale Streets, but with little success.
    2. Also the Russian battalion under Major Titov, stationed at Bonifraterska Street, had been attacked around 7 o'clock by the Poles. After four hours' fighting, the Russians retreated toward the city's western outskirts.
    3. This marked the end of the first day of the uprising.

Okay, one by one then:

  1. It's supposed to be BrE but apparently I missed some spots. Plus as a non-native speaker I'm a little lost when it comes to the -ise vs. -ize Oxford rule.
    1. My understanding is that in BrEng you can choose either -ise or -ize, but you can't mix them—so just choose the one you prefer. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, I know, but it looks better that way (when the icon is there for other languages). Personal preference I guess.
    1. Alright, well, I don't think there's a rule against it&nsbp... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Done
  4. Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.
  5. Actually no, I didn't. Thanks!
  6. Done
  7. Good spotting! Fixed.
  8. ...
    1. Actually all those are sourced in the following sentences, but I added refs anyway, just to be sure.
    2. same here
    3. No can do. I can't remember any source mentioning explicitly. However, as there were no further major actions, it's pretty much a case of WP:BLUE. Otherwise I would have to add a note explaining that available sources do not mention any further actions. Bizarre if you asked me. //Halibutt 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Is there a reason to mention #3? I mean, as the narrative continues the next day anyways, I don't see what this sentence adds to the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. per WP:LEADCITE, he lead normally doesn't require inline citations, as all that information should be cited in the body, unless the info is particularly controversial and subject ot people trying to change it. Are the inline cites in the lead for controversial aspects? If not, get rid of them.
  2. |place=[[Warsaw]], [[Poland]]: should this not be to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth?
  3. [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth|Polish]]: same question
  4. A witness to the fighting was Jan Piotr Norblin, a French-born Polish painter who created a set of sketches and paintings of the struggle.: Is this really notable enough for the lead? And would the artwork likely have its own article?
  5. The isolated Russian forces resisted in several areas for two more days.: This reads like a cliffhanger—they hung in for two days, and then what happened? They were annihilated? captured? surrendered? Russian reinforcements arrived and turned the tide?
  1. Done
  2. This one's tricky. Technically speaking the Constitution of May 3, 1791 along with the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations abolished the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and created a single unitary state called Rzeczpospolita Polska - the Republic of Poland. However, as soon afterwards in 1792 Poland was invaded and in 1793 the Grodno Sejm declared the constitution null and void under pressure from Russia. Finally, as the uprising was precisely against the people behind the Grodno Sejm and in support of the provisions of the constitution, it's pretty complicated to state what was the official name of the country at the time. For sure everyone referred to it as Poland back then, but whether the full version was "Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów" or "Rzeczpospolita Polska" is disputable. I chose Poland for simplicity and because Warsaw was never in Lithuania, so it's safe to use Poland, leaving up to the reader to decide whether he/she uses it as a geographical or political term. However, as the article on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth covers the entire period, regardless of the actual name changes, it's better to use that link at times, as it's more descriptive than the link to Poland.
  3. No idea really. Any article/book on the uprising is filled with Norblin's sketches and he is mentioned in almost every one of them. But whether he is that important? Not sure. I'll move that part further down.
  4. All of the above, see the last sentence in "18 April" section. Any suggestions how to word that? //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. the Polish Army was being reduced: why was it being reduced? Was it legally required to? Lack of funds?
  2. Upon receiving news of Kościuszko's proclamation: what was this a proclamation of?
  3. The King dispatched [[Hetman]] [[Piotr Ożarowski]] and the: with the two links bumping into each other, it appears as if "Hetman" were Ożarowski's first name. As Hetman is an unfamilar term, I'd give it a brief description—maybe something like: "The King dispatched Piotr Ożarowski, who as Hetman was the second-highest military commander after the king,".
  4. Marshal of the Sejm Stanisław Małachowski: what's "the Sjem"?
  1. You're right, that one was definitely unclear. Explained now.
  2. It's wikilinked to a separate article. Do you believe we should expand it in this article?
  3. Done
  4. Wikilinked Marshal of the Sejm. In short: a little more than a speaker of parliament :) //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Opposing forces[edit]
  • the royal uhlan squadrons: what's an "uhlan"?

Wikilinked uhlan. As the word is present in most English dictionaries ([4], [5], [6]) I doubt it needs to be explained in the body of the article. Or does it? //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

    • There are lots of words in the dictionary most people won't know. As an encyclopaedia is aimed at a general readership, I would assume they didn't know terms like this. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Opening moves[edit]
  • [[pułkownik|Colonel]]: this is an WP:EGG as it appears to link to Colonel rather than the Polish term
  • to the Castle Square: as this is a proper noun, does it normally take "the"?

As to the military ranks, I'm lost. I used to stick to Polish ranks, especially in historical contexts. However, many people tend to dislike them for some reason and "correct", say, Chorąży to Warrant Officer. Which is definitely a step in a bad direction. Which is why I used [[pułkownik|Colonel]] here. Anyway, the article links to Polkovnik and not Colonel. I will follow any advice you give.

  • Hmmm ... I'm not much familiar with military stuff, so maybe a specialist should chip in here, but I don't think it should stay the way it is (per WP:EGG). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As to Plac Zamkowy - no idea. Back then it was not an official name as such but rather a descriptive name ("market place" vs. "Market Place"), but in modern times it's a proper name. //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • If it's a descriptive, then it should be in lower case. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
City Centre[edit]
  1. attempted to use to take them under crossfire: I don't understand
  2. two companies and armed with two cannons: two cannons each, or total?
  3. the Warsaw Castle: again, is "the" normal here?
  4. leaving Igelström to his fate: what fate was that?
  5. the Capuchin's churchand monastery: what's "the Capuchin"?
  1. changed to [they] captured the Krasiński Palace which the Poles had been using to fire on them from behind.. Is it better?
  2. two canons in total. Any idea how to clarify that?
  3. No idea. I used the article instinctively. As you probably know Polish doesn't have articles, but in Polish usage some names are kind of stronger than others. Hence when someone says Zamek (literally "Castle", but used to denote a group of officers surrounding the president of Poland in pre-war years), it's clear the translation would be "the Castle" rather than "castle". But in this case - I'm not sure.
    • Unless you're sure the "the" should be there, it probably shouldn't in these cases. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. It's described in full in the "April 18" section. Any suggestions?
  5. It used to be wikilinked right above, only a couple sentences back. However, I switched the link from capuchin order to this particular church (red link, but we'll work on that). Is it better now?
  • I'm going to take a break here. Ping me if I don't stop back in the next few days. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: - no rush, just pinging you to let you know I replied to all of your questions above - and fixed what I could. Thanks again for all the hard work you're doing. //Halibutt 03:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll be too busy for the next couple of days to continue with the review. If I don't return after that, ping me again. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 October 2014, 21:26 UTC)----

Glur's Tavern[edit]

I've listed this article on a historic tavern for peer review because I need help with two technical questions: NRHP Infobox formatting and rotated display of a Wikicommons image.

Thanks, Heritager (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Peer Review is not the appropriate place for seeking technical help. Try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 October 2014, 22:28 UTC)----


I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially rewritten based on academic works and it needs to be checked against WP:NPOV criteria.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Oncenawhile
  • Great article and interesting topic. My suggestions below
  • The first picture in the article should be a representation of Gelou himself, not a map. Whether imaginary or not, I assume representations of him exist?
  • Many of the key sources are unavailable online, so for the more contentious refs, I suggest including a sentence of quotation as support
  • The lead should be longer and should summarise the article more closely
  • The "Gelou in modern historiography" section needs some improvement to its structure:
    • "have always" in the first two sentences should be more specific
    • It reads like a "pros and cons" list. I suggest that the first paragraph becomes a simple summary of the historiographical debate(s) - i.e did Gelou exist. Then rather than having two paragraphs with one "for" and one "against", have paragraphs focusing on the specific areas debated by the scholars, e.g. motivation to invent, similarity to local names, other proven or claimed examples of similar inventions.
  • Oncenawhile (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, thank you very much for your above comments. I highly appreciate your throughful review. Based on your comments, I expanded the lead and tried to modify the last section ("Gelou in modern historiography"). Unfortunatelly, I cannot add a picture of Gelou, because I have no information of such a picture. Sorry, I do not understand your suggestion about sentences "of quotation as support": in most cases, the article itself contains a quotation. Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
From the Chronicon Pictum
@Borsoka: Is this a picture of Gelou? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it is a picture of Gyula III, a Hungarian chieftain ruling in Transylvania a hundred years after the Hungarian Conquest. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What about one of the seven pictured at Seven chieftains of the Magyars - according to Simon of Kéza one of them may be Gyula?
Separately, are you sure Gelou is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article? It might be better to be consistent with Gyula (title), Gyula II and Gyula III. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The Gyulas (or one of the three Gyulas) and Gelou are not identical. Gelou was a Vlach prince fighting against the Magyars, while the Gyulas were Magyar chieftains. Gelou is mentioned under this name in the academic works cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah ok. Given everything we know about Gelou was written by Magyars, and given that Gyula (title) is a generic title, surely this connection should be made clearly in the lead. I assume the academic works mention this? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • László Péter: "Who ruled Transylvania for a period during the tenth century until his defeat by King Stephen. Just as Anonymus derived Salan from the phonetically analogous Kalan, so too did he create Gelou from Gyula."[7]
  • Endre Haraszti: "In some of the Chronicles, this Gyula, or Gylas appeared as "Gelou, dux Blacorum"[8]
  • Béla Köpeczi: "While it is evident that Anonymus had converted honorifics into the real names Gyula and Horka, the source of the name Tétény is less clear: he may have borrowed it from a Hungarian family's legend, or from the locality, on the Danube, called Tétény. Gelou was an authentic personal name as well as a toponym that is noted in the chronicle: the fortress of Gyalu, at the confluence of the Szamos and Kapus rivers. This Hungarian name, of ancient Turkic origin, occurs as a toponym in other regions of Hungary as well. Curiously, Anonymus did not choose a royal castle — such as Kolozsvár or Doboka, both proximate to the scene of his story — for the seat of the Transylvanian Blak leader. Instead, he opted for the Transylvanian bishop's castle at Gyula — perhaps because it was the closest major fort in relation to the Almás River and the Meszes Pass, and because it sounded similar to the leader's name, Gyalu."[9][10]
  • [11]
Hopefully the three quotes above are helpful and could be added to the article. Also, on a different subject, may be worth adding this: Pál Engel "After Gelou was killed by the Hungarians in a battle near the River Somes, his subjects elected Tuhutum, one of the 'seven dukes', as their prince."
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, thank you for your above comments. Could you provide the exact sources of your above citations? I would like to use them to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka, I have added the links above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if you have time, i'd be very grateful for your thoughts on Wikipedia:Peer_review/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"/archive1. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley This is a most impressive article, both for its scholarship and its prose, which, if I may be permitted to say so, is astoundingly good for something written in someone else's mother tongue, and puts monoglot Englishmen like me to shame. Just a few comments:

  • Lead
    • "a dozen of persons" – idiomatic English requires this to be just "a dozen persons" or (I think preferably) "a dozen people".
    • "a sedentary population" – this may be a technical term of which I am ignorant, and if so ignore me, but the normal use of "sedentary" is quite literal – sitting as in being seated, not standing or walking. The term comes up again, I see, in the Background section.
    • "Weapons unearthed in the same regions suggests…" – "weapons" (plural) need a plural verb – "suggest".
  • Background
    • "the presence of Romanians in this context should not be ruled out" – I'd lose the quotation marks. With such a plain phrase you're in no danger of being accused of plagiarism, and the quotation marks don't add much.
    • "the use of spurs by the Avars have not been proven" – the reverse of my comment above: this time we have a singular noun with a plural verb.
    • "ask that they should not sell salt to the Moravians" – another phrase in what I think are unnecessary quotation marks.
  • Gelou and his duchy
    • "a tradition which contradicts their narration" – I think I'd substitute "narrative" for "narration" here: the latter implies the act of narrating, whereas the former is just whatever is being narrated.
  • Sources
    • Macartney, C. A. (1953). The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical & Analytical Guide – according to WorldCat and Google Books the title uses the full word "and" rather than an ampersand.
    • You are inconsistent in how you indicate that a book is in a language other than English: compare the Kordé listing with that for the second Sălăgean. To my mind the former is preferable, and it is certainly more usual.

Those are my few, minor quibbles. As to NPOV, it didn't cross my mind for a moment that there was anything of concern on that score. If you take the article to FAC please ping me. Tim riley talk 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tim riley, thank you for your thorough review, and also for your kind words. I fixed most problems you mentioned above. Sorry, I insist on "my" quotation marks. :) I do not want to be involved in a copyvio issue. Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't at all press the point about the quotation marks. Onwards and upwards to FAC! Tim riley talk 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 October 2014, 02:57 UTC)----

Jefferson–Hemings controversy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it has the potential to become a Good or Featured article

Thanks, Monkelese (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows several problems throughout with dead links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Per WP:LEAD, well, actually lede looks pretty good. Might consider adding a sentence or two to the first paragraph.
  4. 3 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
  5. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
  6. 10 instances in article of large amounts of blockquoting. Strongly recommend removing all blockquoting. Paraphrase instead, and trim down for succinctness. If absolutely necessary, a few shorter quotations smattered about, but I'd avoid it.
  7. Controversy sect, entire paragraph starting with sentence The Jefferson-Wayles descendants and most historians denied for nearly 200 years that he was the father of Hemings' children. is uncited.
  8. Controversy sect, entire paragraph The manuscripts for Thomas Jefferson's Farm Books were rediscovered and published for the first time in 1953, edited by Edwin M. Betts. They provided extensive data about slaves and slave births, including all of Sally Hemings' children, and have been used extensively by researchers. is uncited.
  9. Controversy sect, last sentence in very last paragraph of sect is uncited.
  10. Evidence sect, last sentence of 4th paragraph is uncited: Before their report, in the previous 180 years historians had made no suggestion that Hemings had more than one partner for her children.
  11. 1998 DNA study sect, first paragraph The Jefferson family assertions about Carr paternity of Eston Hemings were disproved in a 1998 DNA study which tested the Y-chromosome of direct male-line descendants of Eston Hemings, the Carr male line, and the Jefferson male line. In addition it tested male descendants of Thomas Woodson, who have a tradition of descent from Jefferson. is uncited.
  12. Monticello Community sect, why is second word in this sect header capitalized?
  13. Monticello Community sect, After Hemings moved his family to Madison, Wisconsin in 1852, they took the surname Jefferson and entered the white community. His descendants married and identified as white from then on. last sentence of 2nd paragraph is uncited.
  14. Representation in other media sect, this sect strikes me as sort of awkward or odd, it has both prose and list format, suggest perhaps finding secondary sources and modifying to prose paragraph format.
  15. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 October 2014, 20:35 UTC)----

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Language and literature[edit]

I Never Liked You[edit]

One of my favourite books, I'm aiming at making a Featured Article out of this, and would appreciate any feedback I can get.

Thanks, Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)**

Comments from Tim riley

Not much to contribute.

  • A couple of phrases need attention:
    • she tries to spend to with him
    • she tries to talk about awkward subject
  • and this was new to me and looks strange:
    • hid-and-side games
  • Background
    • The first three sentences all begin "Brown"
  • Publication
    • A "New Definitive Edition"… the second occurrence of "Brown" in this sentence would be better as "he".
  • Reception and legacy
    • Something odd has happened to the possessive apostrophe in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 October 2014, 02:21 UTC)----

Philosophy and religion[edit]

St James the Great, St Kilda East[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because despite the work done on the subject it remains listed at a "start class". This parish is unique in many ways: the smallest geographical parish in Melbourne (if not Australia), its history from the closed St John's Theological College, its survival despite cultural changes in the area, particularly since World War 2. I really want this article to be a good resource, and welcome comments.

Thanks, Adamm (talkcontribs) 00:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A few notes from Peripitus. I can't find any significant material missing. It needs more inline referencing and copyediting.

  • There a quite a few unreferenced paragraphs. From the context I assume that they are sourced from articles in the references section, but they do need inline references to back up factual statements.
  • A few common word structures to avoid: "also" is almost always redundant as is "A number of"; "recent" or "currently" should be replaced with a reference to the time in question.
  • The lead and history section seem to allow readers to be confused about the division between the the parish founded in 1914 and the physical church in 1915. Perhaps something like "St James the Great is an Anglican parish and associated church in the City of Glen Eira, Victoria, Australia." Then some edits to make it clear which bit refers to which entity.
  • Has the church been consecrated ? Did this happen in June 1915 or was that just the date of the first services in the new building.

- Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 October 2014, 00:00 UTC)----

Social sciences and society[edit]

Mark Udall[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to nominate it for good article status, but in the meantime, I'd like suggestion on how to make it better.

Thanks, Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 09:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 October 2014, 09:53 UTC)----

Joan Robinson Hill[edit]

This article tells the story of the life and death of Houston socialite Joan Robinson Hill, a noted horsewoman whose death in 1969 remains unexplained to the present day. I've listed it for peer review because it covers the topic quite broadly and I think has potential to become a GA, but I'd like to know what else it might need to get it there. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from esprit15d

  • I've made some changes that aren't controversial just to help the cause along.
  • Note: This article was probably difficult to write since there are multiple people with the same last names. To help with this, Wikipedia policy is that people should be referred to by their last names. When there are more than one person in an article with the same last name, use the first name in any paragraph where the last name alone would be ambiguous. (Reference WP:SAMESURNAME. For an example see the article White Stripes). Since Joan's "last name" appears to be Robinson Hill, I would refer to her as that, except when talking about events prior to her marriage, where she should be referred to as Robinson or Joan.
  • As it stood, the first paragraph in the lede was confusing, since it seems like Joan got killed twice. Once I kind of figured out this referred to her husband, I began to wonder what his name actually was it hadn't been mentioned yet. Also, it's not immediately clear who the surgeon mentioned the lede is either. Characters are being mentioned without establishing who they are.
  • The pictures are awesome.
  • The history of Ash Robinson's education and how he met his wife in the "Equestrianism and marriage" section, while interesting, seems totally unrelated to the topic of the article. I would delete it, and start with "After finally settling in Houston..." You could possibly mention that he was an oilman, since its relevant to Joan's childhood.
  • The sentence that begins, "She was also married..." kind of came abruptly. You think it could be incorporated into the material more chronologically? Or, one could start a new paragraph there, that kind of addresses her marriage history.
  • In regards to the sentence that begins "Robinson Hill died on March 19, 1969, at..." "abrupt" isn't even the word. This is the defining event for the entire article, and it dropped in casually into the back half of a paragraph with no lead-in. Perhaps her illness can be mentioned first, and any relevant events, and then the paragraph end with her death on March 19, 1969.

Unfortunately, I have to go, and cannot complete this peer review, but hopefully this was helpful up this point.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 02:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I quickly perused the article before leaving, and realized that much of the information in "Equestrianism and marriage" is expounded on again in later sections. The article should be reformatted to only cover main events briefly in the lede, and the in detail ONCE in the body. There is no need for multiple summaries, and multiple treatments of the same events.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tweaks and the review. Some useful comments here, and I'll make a start on updating it. I'll also put it through the copyedit process in case I miss anything. This is Paul (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • After I left this article, I kept thinking about it, and something occurred to me. Joan personal notability comes from the fact that she was a renowned equestrian apparently. However, you cannot be notable for things that happened TO YOU after you died. Those events are notable in and of themselves. So, for Wikipedia purposed, that means her articles should be set up like any other BIO article, and the events surrounding the subsequent murder trial should be broken off into a separate article. I would recommend the following course of action:
  • Create a stub called "The death of Joan Robinson Hill" (or probably some other title. I would check precedent on Wikipedia for naming ideas, or take the matter to an RfC). Tag it {{hist-stub}}.
  • Copy and paste all subheadings that don't deal with her actual life to that new article (pretty much everything from "John Hill" down.)
  • Tighten up the "Joan Hill Robinson" article. It is currently not maximized thematically or chronologically, and contains a little too much about her ancestry (or grandparents and parents). You can reintroduce a lot of the information from the other article back into "Joan Hill Robinson" but in a way that pertains more to her. I would set the article up, and arrange everything into the following headings:
  • Early life (covering her parents, childhood, education, and everything up to I think her first two marriages)
  • Career (covering her training, ascent, awards, and major accomplishments)
  • Personal life (her marriage to John Hill: how they met, their wedding, major events that happened during their marriage, the nature of their marriage)
  • Death: This subheading should have the {{main|The death of Joan Robinson Hill}}. This section should thoroughly cover the verifiable information leading to her death, and then BRIEFLY cover the fallout and new legislation. The new article should go into detail about all the grisly details of the resultant murders, trials, and conspiracies resulting from her death.
  • References
  • External links
  • Start setting up the new article.
I am willing to help with all of this as well. Let me know, and I would be happy to help.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, it would be great if you could help with this, as there seems to be a lot of work to do. I think splitting the article into two separate pieces is sensible, although a Death of Joan Robinson Hill article may still require some detail of her life. Maybe just who she was–i.e., a horsewoman and socialite with marital problems, as these were all factors in later parts of the case. Before making any major changes though, I'll drop a note at We hope's talk page, as the other editor who's made a significant contribution to this. Thanks again, and I look forward to working with you. This is Paul (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, I wouldn't mind helping with this effort at all, I really cherish that cooperative spirit in fellow Wikipedians.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 17:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 October 2014, 12:53 UTC)----

Twink (gay slang)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I feel this article has reached a good stage. I feel the article has reached B grade, for LGBT studies, also how the article stands on Gender studies if the article needs more work and if so what could improve the article?

Thanks, Pennine rambler (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:LEAD says the article should be a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. The lede intro is therefore a bit too short right now. — Cirt (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks, I think it is to early for a peer review on reflection.--Pennine rambler (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 October 2014, 20:18 UTC)----

Peter Aduja[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like others to provide suggestions to edits, prior to nominating this article as a good article.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Interesting article on a deceased politician who is no longer alive. (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
  4. 1 image used in the article. Suggest contacting people to try to obtain a free-use licensed image to upload to Wikimedia Commons through the commons:Commons:OTRS process.
  5. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
  6. This is an article primarily pertaining to United States. Please convert to USA date formatting in both body text and in citations.
  7. Remove Biography sect header, not needed.
  8. Move Family info up to new top sect, Early life and family, and then put beginning info in Biography sect, in that new sect.
  9. Try expanding all portions of the entire article with additional sourced content from more secondary sources. Surely there's more sourced info available on this individual then is present in this relatively small article at present.
  10. Not sure cites are needed for all those little things in the infobox itself, as it's noncontroversial info, just make sure it's mentioned and cited in the main article body text.
  11. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt:, thanks once again for reviewing the article. I have made the following edits to the article as suggested above. I have not changed the dates per WP:STRONGNAT, due to the subject having once served as a Soldier. I don't believe that this should significantly impact a GA nomination. I have merged some sentences, and incorporated the data from the family section. Unfortunately, there aren't many sources that give the subject significant coverage, even though the subject's first election was a very notable milestone in the political history of Filipino Americans.
Are there any other additional corrections I should make?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 October 2014, 21:11 UTC)----


Morgan Freeman on screen and stage[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Morgan Freeman has a long, extensive career history that is still being added to. He's also one of my fav actors and deserves to have a great career history. Any suggestions would be helpful!

Thanks, LADY LOTUSTALK 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Going for another FL? I did a bit of copyediting to the lead, and am happy to give this some preliminary comments.....

Yes ;) Probably my last one for a while, just felt nice to get articles to FL status. Thanks Snuggums LADY LOTUSTALK 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "before being cast in the 1989 war film Glory as Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins"..... not sure the prefixes should be abbreviated if included
    •  Done
  • "he played God in the comedy film Bruce Almighty opposite Jim Carrey and again in the sequel Evan Almighty"..... if mentioning Carrey for Bruce Almighty, then Steve Carell should be mentioned for Even Almighty; in its current form, this could suggest Carrey was in Evan Almighty when in fact he wasn't.
    •  Done
  • "During that time he also"..... needs comma after "time"
    •  Done
  • "he played Eddie 'Scrap Iron' Dupris in Clint Eastwood's film Million Dollar Baby, which he won an Academy Award"
    • What needed changing? LADY LOTUSTALK 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I forgot to say that it should be "for which" Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
        •  Done
  • "The following year he was in"..... needs comma after "year"
    •  Done
  • FN20: Time shouldn't be in all caps
    •  Done
  • FN21: Should read The Baltimore Sun
    •  Done
  • FN34: Michael Fleming Jr → Michael Fleming, Jr.
    •  Done
  • FN36: reliable?
    •  Done - replaced
  • FN37: Same as FN20
    •  Done if you meant that Time doesn't need to be caps
      • Yes
  • FN's 38 and 39: reliable?
    • 38 is The New York Times? and FN 39 replaced.

LOL it's ok! LADY LOTUSTALK 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking through again, I meant to say FN40 (Crave Online) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • FN44: Same as FN36
    •  Done - replaced
  • FN's 46 and 47: Should read TheWrap
    •  Done
  • FN57: USA Today should be italicized
    •  Done
  • FN56: Since publishers aren't being used in other refs, I'd say remove "Hearst Newspapers" for consistency
    •  Done
  • FN70: reliable?
    •  Done - replaced
  • FN71: Same as FN's 46 and 47
    •  Done
  • FN72: The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized
    •  Done
  • FN's 78 and 79: Should simply read "New York"
    •  Done
  • FN82: The New York Times should be italicized
    •  Done

Hope this helps! Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snuggums! All done except on a couple, didn't know what you meant by "FN37 is the same as FN20", did you mean like make both Times not capitalized? And then you said 38 isn't reliable but it's the New York Times, so I didn't know if that was a mistake or not? LADY LOTUSTALK 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes that was a mistake on my part. You did everything right :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol awesome, thanks so much! LADY LOTUSTALK 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 October 2014, 20:51 UTC)----

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]