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
Shortcut:
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.

Contents

Arts[edit]

Saturday Night Live incidents[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I started this article after splitting it off from the main Saturday Night Live article, and would like some feedback and possible improvements. I also expanded and fixed many sources.

Thanks, StewdioMACK (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 26 January 2015, 05:20 UTC)----


Renaissance (band)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article to be upgraded to B class or higher, and I would greatly appreciate comments, and constructive criticism to enable me to understand where the article stands from a broader perspective. I have improved the article a significant amount, doing 132 edits, adding almost all of the inline citations to RS, and removing a seven year old refimprove tag. Comments covering all or any of the sections are keenly sought. I have had very little feedback from other editors, which I am hoping means that I have done some good. Many thanks, CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from DonEd[edit]

I've had a brief look at the article and it is nicely written. However:

  • The discography section makes the article WAY too long. They seem to have released a lot of music so maybe a separate page wouldn't be a bad idea.
  • You may want to go through each section and add more references to verify what you have written. There are many paragraphs with what has happened, but nothing to back it up. You can't accuse a man of murder without evidence after all! Horrible metaphor, I know.
  • In "Second incarnation (1971–80)" section, you start off with "Sometime in 1971..." When in 1971? It doesn't have to be the exact date, time and what they were wearing. Was it in the first quarter of the year? If known, was it in a particular month?
  • In the discography section, you are missing references for US chart peaks. I've checked the Billboard website and there doesn't seem to be any info on their chart peaks. However, there is the AllMusic website. Here's the link: [1] My internet is a bit slow at the moment so I can't check it.

That's all for the moment. I'll go through it again (unless someone else beats me to the punch) and see what else you need to do. But for the meantime, start fixing those references young man/lady!!! Otherwise give yourself a pat on the back and let me know if you have any questions! DonEd (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 06:24 UTC)----


Lips Are Movin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC. Please leave your input for the article's improvement here.

Thanks, Marano fan 13:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Just a few quick comments, otherwise most of the prose is in decent shape and I wouldn't see anything that might derail a GAN.

  • The lead could summarise the article slightly better, or more specifically the music video. What did critics think about the music video itself?
  • "Billboard wrote that a few hours after the premiere it rose to number four on their Twitter Trending 140 chart" - should Twitter really be mentioned here? Is it an official chart?
  • ""Lips Are Movin" was co-written by Meghan Trainor and Kevin Kadish, and produced by the latter." - could read better as "Lips Are Movin" was co-written by Meghan Trainor and was produced by Kevin Kadish, if that is true
  • The image in the Production and release section needs to be enlarged a bit, per guidelines
  • "In its sixth week, the song registered a 21-8 climb and has since peaked at number five" - what does this mean?
  • " Elsewhere in Europe, "Lips Are Movin" has so far peaked within the top 20 in the Czech Republic" - this could be outdated soon, so this needs to be written in present tense, more specifically as on February 2015 etc. Also, is there any information on how the song performed in other European countries such as France, Spain etc?
  • I'm not too sure about this, but do you think the Formats and track listings should be there? It seems very short

That's all of the prose issues I spotted in my initial reading. Overall looks nice and solid though, so please let me know if you have any questions. Jaguar 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thank you. I believe that I have resolved the concerns given above. Can you go over the article again, this time in relevance to an FAC? MaRAno FAN 17:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a helpful addition to the lead, and I'm glad Winkelvi reverted. It's weaselish and quite trivial. Its addition to the lead is somewhat symptomatic of the article as a whole, which seems to have a hard time distinguishing the important from the trivial. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I listed the most basic comments on this peer review and I admit that it didn't take me long to look over this, but Marano, seeing as this has been on Eric's talk page and now a GAR is open, I would strongly recommend trying to save this from being de-listed before any hopes of this reaching the FA criteria. Jaguar 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar: I think that we can now get on with PR. MaRAno FAN 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 06:24 UTC)----


Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because last year I made it into a GA. I would like to be able to put it forward for FA but I would like an independent opinion on where it specifically requires improvement to meet FA standards.

Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Sir, I think personally that the article is a bit small for such good subject. I think that you should expand the History Section by involving more references and data. In fact, the article does not give a clear overview about the artistic impact of the work (influence) and it does not give the restauration process of this artistic work (Care). You should work more on this important topic. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Csisc: Size isn't necessarily an issue with FA but can you elaborate on what sort of references and data is needed as you stated in your first comment? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@The C of E: It is true that this is not the issue in itself. However, a description of the painting care of this work would be give a better overview of the Table. The sort of references required are newspaper issues about a recovery of the painting, research paper about the impact of the recovery on the table. For example, clarifying whether the recovery had affected the clarity or the colour of the painting as it had happened to the famous Da Vinci Artistic Work... --Csisc (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 06:24 UTC)----


Bramshill House[edit]

Previous peer review

Looking at some of the other FAs on country houses I think with a bit of work Bramshill House could be brought up to FA status. It's an important Jacobean mansion and quite a prominent country house historically. It's been as well researched as possible to the point that Yngvadottir even got hold of some specialist material I believe. I'd be very grateful for some wide input on this before taking to FAC. Thanks, ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "was sold to heritage property developers City & Country" – you know my aversion to the false title: you need a "the" before "heritage" for this to be good English. Same applies at mention of the company in the main text.
Agreed, yup, that was added fairly recently by somebody else once it was sold.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Original house
    • Does ref 5 cover all the statements in the three sentences preceding it?
I think so, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "During the reign of King Charles I" – but earlier we have "the 14-year-old Edward III" with no "King" – which I think is preferable.
I think we can do without "King" in all instances.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Exterior
    • "attributed to architect John Thorpe" – another false title
Done.
  • Interior
    • "noted for its "rich period decoration"." – if worth putting in quotes it's worth attributing in the text
Paraphrased instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "Sir William applied" – MOS:SURNAME – "Cope applied"
Done.
    • "The billiard room has a secret door" – not much of a secret, if we disclose it here.
Hidden OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Legends
    • "which had been proven" – "proven" is fine in Scottish and American usage, but "proved" is better in English.
Done (you learn something new every day :-) )
  • Bibliography
    • Not clear what your policy is on using the "authorlink" field. Lord Ribblesdale, Henry Tanner and Miles Tripp are not linked but Pevsner, Lees-Milne et al are.
I believe it's authors who have their own article. Perhaps some of the others do which I've missed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. The article is clear, thorough and well documented. Definitely FAC potential, I'd say. – Tim riley talk 09:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim for the quick response!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor comments from Peter I. Vardy[edit]

Thank you for asking me to have a look at this article. I do not see myself as a reviewer, and I am certainly no copy editor. The article looks good, comprehensive, and well-written. Some minor points:

Done, and to body as well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a stub about Thomas Foxley (c. 1305–60), and this could be linked.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the "rules" for alt text. Should this be added to images at FA level?
Probably, but I've never seen the point in alt text to be honest! What am I missing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou PeterDr. Blofeld 11:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Nicely put together article covering what I would expect it to. I made a few MoS tweaks here and there - feel free to rv if you disagree. A couple of other comments for you to consider:

Exterior

  • "the art connoisseur Anthony Blunt": perhaps art historian is more accurate?

Refs

  • FNs 49, 66 & 85 need to be tweaked to show 139–39, not 139–9

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks SchroCat. Anything else?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

I think that the work is good and it can be bettered to Featured Article if some recifications would be done soon.

  • A better description of the Architecture of the building is required. For example, type of coloration used in painting...
  • The History Section lacks from citing the reasons and the circumstances of building the Bramshill House like the Funding of the first building process and the team working on building it.

Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Csisc but I'm not sure such details exist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Very engaging and well written. A few quibbles.

  • "reputed to haunt the house is allegedly" I think one or the other between "reputed" and "allegedly" will do.
good point!
  • "held by Hugh de Port,[3] whose family subsequently held" held ... held. Is there a synonym?
Reworded to "in possession of it"
  • "who also held lands in Bray" is this relevant?
Probably not!
  • "it may have been a copy of William of Wykeham's work there" the reader may want slightly more of a hint as to which was the original.
Not sure what you're getting at here Wehwalt?
  • " lists the library as having 250 books and a collection of mathematical instruments, and revealed that the maids' chamber" so present or past tense?
past tense, changed.
  • "It has been described as a "magnificent" "large Renaissance mansion",[44] and labelled one of the "glories of English architecture" by the art historian Anthony Blunt and the architectural historian James Lees-Milne.[45]" unless the reader's particularly bright, he may not realise that those from before the footnote are from one, and the others from the second.
Exceptionally good point, altered it.
  • " German builders, replacing the Italian artisans who left England following the accession of Elizabeth I" you might want to add a "for religious reasons" or whatever it was.
I'm not sure what the reason was, can you find a source to support a reason why they left? Probably religious but it would be OR unless I can find a source to support it.
  • "but it is light enough to be Ionic" I think, "but are light enough to be Ionic"
Yup, done.
  • "Munich Gallery" linkable?
I couldn't find it at the time, I'll look again.
  • "Two of the bedrooms, the two "White Rooms", were originally connected to what was called the Flower-de-luce Room, but the door was boarded up." Door or doors?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You'd think it would indeed be two, perhaps Yngvadottir can clarify.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, much appreciated, will address tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Some excellent points here, very much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 06:24 UTC)----


Dark Side of the Moon (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its request for reassignment from start-class to c- or b-class was rejected for reasons that don't appear obvious to me (b1 Referencing & citations = no | b2 Coverage & accuracy = no | b3 Structure = no | b4 Grammar & style = yes | b5 Supporting materials = no), and without comments that might help to improve the article, so any comment or review is welcome. It is the first time I am writing a wikipedia article and following this rating process, so please feel free to tell me about wikipedia rules that I might have overlooked.

Thanks, Jlbruyelle (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth[edit]

Reading through the article, I can see why the reviewers said "no" to most of the criteria categories. Here's a brief set of suggestions:

  • To improve the referencing and citations, add inline citations for every claim in the article that involves quantities or quotations or that makes a claim that is disputed, doubtful, or controversial. For example, most of the claims in the "Giveaways" section lack citations to reliable sources. They are therefore in violation of WP:V since they cannot be verified by readers. Claims that are not verifiable should be removed from the article. Ditto for the "Elements" section and the "Characters" section and anything else lacking a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS.
  • Coverage could be improved by including a "Plot" or "Synopsis" section right underneath the lead. Readers who have not seen the film will want to know what happens in the film and how it proceeds from beginning to end.
  • For a variety of ideas about structure and other criteria, see Borat, a featured article about a documentary. Also, WP:Manual of Style/Film has many suggestions about style and structure.
  • Please note that nothing should appear in the lead that is not in the main text. The first paragraph of the existing lead seems OK, but the long quotation is not OK. If it has any place in the article, it would be somewhere below, but a paraphrase would be better than such a long quote from a catalog. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from CaesarsPalaceDude[edit]

  • The article reads well, avoids becoming too complicated, and is mostly devoid of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. In the section "Reception" one small paragraph uses the verb "aired" four times. A trick many writers employ is to have a variety of similar words: "aired", "screened", or "was shown" etc.
  • As noted above, the long quotation from the catalogue is a significant issue, especially in the lead. It would be an excellent idea to remove it completely from the lead, as soon as possible (ie. don't wait until the end of the review process). It has no place in the lead. If you would like to quote from the catalogue, place it in the body of the article, and I would suggest only using one sentence.
  • Also noted above, the weakest area of the article is referencing and citations. I endorse the comments from Finetooth entirely. Here comes the hard bit. There are more problems with the citations, and they are equally serious. Currently, the article relies too heavily on primary sources, in particular the two interviews with William Karel. You would probably be best served to keep the citations you already have, and support them with citations to reliable secondary sources. I recommend you read WP:PRIMARY, if you haven't already done so.
  • Unfortunately, there is one very serious problem with one citation. Reference 6. contains a link to another Wikipedia article (Vernon A. Walters). When I did this in the first article I wrote, I was told that it "was a big no, no at Wikipedia". I am obliged to pass the same on to you. We are not allowed to use any other Wikipedia article (or section thereof) as a citation. See WP:CIRCULAR. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to rip that citation out without hesitation (even if you did not put it in).
  • The lead doesn't mention anything about the Actual "witnesses" or the Fictitious witnesses, or any of the sections below them. Please remember that the lead is a summary of the whole article (doesn't mean that you have to cover every single item), and should briefly describe what is in the article. A short mention about the "Adolf-Grimme-Preis" would be good.
  • I was surprised to observe that there is no coverage of a critical review from a newspaper or magazine in the "Reception" section. This is the sort of content many readers would expect to find there.
  • In conclusion, the article has too many serious shortcomings to even recommend promoting it to C-class. On the other hand, it shows a huge amount of potential to become an article we can be very proud of, so don't give up. With some hard work, it can make it to B-class. There is always help at hand; you can ask questions at the Help Desk, or at the relevant WikiProject (and you will talk to some very nice people, too) CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 06:24 UTC)----


Gary Cooper[edit]

Beginning in September 2014, I did a substantial re-write of the article using five Cooper biographies and various secondary sources. The article was promoted to GA status on December 21, 2014. I spent the past two weeks making additional edits related to GA comments and suggestions. Please review the article against the WP:FA? criteria in preparation for FAC nomination. Thanks, Bede735 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Image comments

  • File:Gary cooper promo image.jpg - Recent FA image reviews have rejected the "publicity stills were rarely copyrighted, so we can assume this didn't have a copyright mark" argument. We'll need something which had both sides available at the source if we're going to claim PD-no notice (also note that stills and films would have had to be registered separately, so because a still is free it doesn't mean the film is free, and vice versa)
Question @Crisco 1492: This publicity photo was used for the film Meet John Doe. When ownership for the film was transfered from RKO to Frank Capra and Robert Riskin, they sold the film to Goodwill Pictures. When Goodwill failed to renew their copyright, the film reverted to the public domain. Is it likely that Goodwill newed the copyright for publicity photos while failing to renew the copyright for the film itself? This question also applies to the movie still listed below. Bede735 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I just checked renewals for artwork (covers things like lobby cards, posters and photos) for the years 1968 and 1969. There were no listings for Meet John Doe, so you can copy the search information onto the photos. We hope (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the lead image with a publicity photo with a reverse side with no copyright statement. Please confirm that this is acceptable. Bede735 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
YesYComment I think it would be better if you changed the license to copyright not renewed. Not sure whether the photo was issued without borders or if the newspaper cropped it and kept only the photo portion. When there's copyright fine print on a border, most of them have a rider that says something like this (at lower left): "Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction." The back of the photo notes that the newspaper received the photo in November 1936, but the Minneapolis Journal didn't use it for publication until February 17, 1937. I've now checked publications renewals for the Minneapolis Journal for the years 1964 and 1965--The paper didn't renew any issues during those two years--nothing with "Minneapolis" in the title was listed.
I changed the license and added a note in permissions. Bede735 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
YesYOn a side note, this photo of Cooper and his wife could also be used under copyright not renewed if you want to include it. It was published by the Minneapolis Journal November 14, 1933. A check of periodical renewals for the years 1960 and 1961 show that the Journal didn't renew any issues during those two years. I would, however, include a footnote in the article about Mrs. Cooper being known by more than one name. The photo lists her as Sandra Shaw; have seen others identifying her with that name. Until I went to her article where I saw Sandra Shaw in the infobox, I thought he had been married more than once. We hope (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I added a note to the article. I will upload the photo and add it to the Marriage and family section. Bede735 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Gary Cooper 1903.jpg - What evidence do we have that this was published before 1923? A family picture like this could conceivably have been unpublished til much later.
This image has a PD-US-not_renewed license (1923–63). I could find only two published sources with this image: a Saturday Evening Post article (February 25, 1956, p. 29), and The Films of Gary Cooper (Dickens, 1970, p. 2). Neither source has a copyright notice for the image. Bede735 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It might be difficult to get a copy of a Grinnell College yearbook from 1922. The college website lists the inventory for its Libraries Special Collections and yearbooks dating that far back are not included. Bede735 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Gary Cooper 1926.jpg - Link's dead. Unless the individual is some hundred years old, rather doubtful that they were the photographer (and thus the copyright holder, and thus actually able to give a free license)
I found a copy of the photo in a 1943 film book which wasn't renewed. Have changed the Commons information to point to the book at Internet Archive and the license to copyright not renewed. We hope (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a different image. The one uploaded was not a full profile. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, it looks like they're moving the photos to another host. You can't find anything of the LA Times archives other then the descriptions. Was at what appears to be their new service; it has very few photos transferred and what is there doesn't work well yet. We hope (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I added a link the trailer and uploaded a new screenshot from that trailer. Bede735 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
IMBD trailer. Just watched it and there's no notice We hope (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Trailer is at IMDB. I just watched it and there's no notice. We hope (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In the text (last sentence of that section) I mention the "three-ton boulder" that marks the grave. The image is meant to illustrate that setting. Bede735 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

YesYMake sure to check that all of the date fields are accurate. For instance, File:Gary Cooper in Saratoga Trunk 1945.jpg was not created in 2014. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @Crisco 1492:, for your quick response and thorough review. I will address all of your comments, and may have some follow-up questions on some of the issues. Bede735 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Sorry to be a bit late, and I'll have to do this in patches. On general reading it's very good, but with a few minor issues here and there. These tend to fall into two categories: firstly there's a little too much detail in places (such as listing all co-stars etc). This makes the prose flow a little less smoothly in places, and makes it a long read (you could lose a thousand words and it would be a tighter read). Secondly you tend to overblow the language slightly from time to time: "famous line", "superb reviews", "devoted mother", "pleasantly drawling" and "finest restaurants" are more in line with journalists and non-neutral biographies, rather than striking the neutral, non-encyclopaedic tone we aim for at FA.

Thank you, @SchroCat:, for your feedback. I made most of your changes as indicated below. Regarding the co-stars, I removed some and will return to this issue later. I agree that removing them would make some of the sentences flow more smoothly, but including the co-star names helps the reader identify the film, especially the lesser known titles (for example, I Take This Woman might not be as recognizable as I Take This Woman with Carole Lombard). Right now, I believe I only include well-known co-stars. I will revisit the issue later. Bede735 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Early life

  • YesY"devoted mother": Devoted seems a little peacocky/unencyclopaedic here (most mothers are devoted, and it's the sort of thing you'd read in a puff piece or newspaper).

Silent films

  • YesY"In early 1925, Cooper began his film career working as an extra and stunt rider in silent films...": you've told us this in the last line of the preceding sentence. As you've told us he was going to do extra and stunt rider work, perhaps "In early 1925, Cooper began his film work in silent pictures" (which also gets rid of the repeated "films" in the same sentence.
  • YesY"Cooper also found work in a variety of non-Western films, appearing, for example…" I'd remove the names of the film's stars from the list: they add little, and in most cases Coops wouldn't have appeared with them (which suggests acting between the two).
  • YesY"Lilac Time with Colleen Moore.[62] The latter film, which introduced synchronized music and sound effects": I thought Don Juan (1926 film) from 1926 introduced it?

Hollywood stardom

  • YesYImage caption: "Cooper in The Virginian, speaking the famous line, "If you wanna call me that, smile."": "famous"? Not only have I never heard it (no great surprise) but it didn't make the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes and isn't readily identifiable as "famous".
Well the line is described as "famous" in three of my sources, but I removed the word. It's probably more notable for being the forerunner of "Smile when you say that", a cliché in Westerns.
  • YesY"deep, clear, and pleasantly drawling voice": definitely needs to be attributed to someone, and preferably quoted
  • YesY"He had lost thirty pounds during that period": you'll need to provide an imperial/metric conversion
  • YesY"in the finest restaurants": lose this bit, it's peacocky and adds nothing

American folk hero

  • YesY"In the fall of 1936" -> "In late 1936" per WP:SEASON
  • YesY"equal to $8,185,977 today": too precise and too recent. Suggest "equates to approximately $8.2 million in 2015"
I changed the currency conversion template to the format that comes closest to your suggestion.
  • YesY"the film became Goldwyn's biggest failure": what, ever? ;) probably add "to that date" on the end to clarify
  • YesY"including Graham Greene": Greene sort of pops in from nowhere. It may be worth tweaking to "including the writer Graham Greene" just so people don't click away from the article to see if it is Greene the writer.
I introduced him as "author and film critic Graham Greene" later in the article, so I moved that up to the first reference, which I added later.
  • YesY"received superb reviews": peacocky. Just let the reviewers say their bits, which is more than enough
  • YesY"his heartrending farewell speech": peacocky

Done to the end of American folk hero for the moment. Will return shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Carrying on...

Mature roles

  • YesY"The overly sentimental film" Things like are red flags at FA reviews: you need to say who says things like this, along the lines of 'xxx of the Washington Post described the film as "overly sentimental", and it received poor reviews', or similar

Later films

  • YesY"the famous World War I general": I've taken out the "famous", as it's always a problem seeing it. (Famous to who? I can guarantee most of the world, including most of the US, haven't heard of him). FA reviewers will always pick up on words like that. Any word that appears at WP:PEACOCK is always going to be a problem, unless it's part of a quote.
  • YesYNot sure what the Conrad quote is doing there: without saying who made the connection it is OR

Marriage and family

  • YesY"posh finishing schools": lose the posh
  • YesY"As a family they vacationed together in Sun Valley, Idaho, during the fall and winter, spent summers at Rocky's parents' country house in Southampton": you'll need to re-work this to avoid the season names (especially the Americanism "fall", which isn't universally understood). You need to check throughout, as I notice the same with his Hemmingway friendship
I went through the article and changed or removed most seasonal references, but kept a few in those cases where changing or removing them did not work, or in cases where the third guidance point in MOS:SEASON applies. When the sources indicate "summer of ...", for example, and the timing is relevant to sequence or context, it is difficult to reword without introducing awkward phrasing, imprecision, or original research. January–March and October–December are not so difficult to replace with "early" and "late" respectively, but spring, summer, and autumn are more problematic, especially when associated with seasonal activities, such as summer vacations. When describing seasonal events in a specific location (in this case, North America), I would think ambiguity is less of an issue. Bede735 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Career assessment

  • YesY"More than a half century after his death, Cooper's enduring legacy is his image of that ideal American hero film audiences still find so attractive and compelling." It’s a big claim, so best to identify who makes it – "according to…" works well.

A very, very good article here, and on a great topic too. It's close to FAC, but I'd go through it and try and tighten the prose in a couple of places, mostly around the YesYpeacock terms. Hope this all helps, and please drop me a note when you go to FAC! – SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @SchroCat:, for taking the time to go through the article and providing these helpful suggestions. I checked the article for the main peacock terms listed in the guidance and will go back and review more carefully for this and for the co-stars issue. I'll let you know when I submit the article for FAC. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I have not forgotten, but will hold back till SchroCat has finished. Tim riley talk 20:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Now reporting for duty as SchroCat has completed his comments. Very little left for me to glean from:

  • YesYduplicate links – see WP:OVERLINK – Fay Wray, Ernst Lubitsch, Claudette Colbert, French Foreign Legion, Ronald Colman, King Vidor, William Wyler, Billy Wilder and Delmer Daves
  • YesYunnecessary links – English, lawyer, Italy, lions, rhinoceros, antelopes, slang, selfishness, playboy, romantic relationships and affair.
  • YesY"of an English public school" – are we sure that Dunstable Grammar School was a public school in the British sense of the word, in which language is turned on its head to mean that private schools are called "public schools" and schools for the public are not called public schools? (Yes, I know, but that's the way it is.) I see there were boarders, which does rather suggest fee-paying, but I thought I'd check.
I changed it to "English school", but Meyers (p. 14) and Carpozi (p. 15) refer to Dunstable as a "public school". The school's website seems to imply that it was during that time, but neither Coop nor his brother boarded at the school—they stayed with his father's cousins. Let me know if you think I should change it back. Bede735 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think your edit is prudent, and I'd leave it at that. Tim riley talk 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • YesY"an exhaustive ride" – it may be a UK-US thing, but to me "exhaustive" means "extremely thorough", as in "an exhaustive search", rather than "exhausting", as here. Later: I see Collins' American English Dictionary thinks so too.
  • YesY"an "instinctive authenticity".[51] – if it's worth putting in quotes it's worth attributing it in the text
  • YesY"established movie star Clara Bow" – do your readers really need a link to "movie star"?
  • YesY"per film … per week" – I'd make the second "a week"
  • YesY"the slopes of Mount Kenya in Nairobi" – geography has gone off the rails here by about a hundred miles
  • YesY"Plagued by production issues" – "issues" is a woolly management-speak word; "problems" is clearer. ("health issues" too, later in the text – twice)
  • YesY"generally centered around sports" – some people get very hot under the collar about "centered around", which, they maintain, is a logical impossibility. I think they're a bit silly, but I find it best to write "centering on", which they don't seem to mind.
  • YesY"Actor Charles Laughton, who played opposite Cooper" – as you tell us he played opposite GC you don't need to tell us he was an actor

That's all from me. The article is long, but is now a lot tighter (1,500 words shorter) than the version that went to GAN, and is greatly improved thereby. It looks like a Featured Article now, in my view. Please let me know when you have it at FAC. – Tim riley talk 12:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim riley, for reviewing the article again. I appreciate your time and feedback. I will let you know when I submit the article for FAC. I still have some unresolved image issues problems to close out. :-) Bede735 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Touché in re issues! I chuckled. Tim riley talk 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 06:24 UTC)----


Everyday life[edit]

2003 Food City 500[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have a desire to get this article to Featured article status and any feedback and criticisms of his NASCAR race report are welcome. This is also the final stage in my hopes of achieving the four award.

Thanks, Z105space (Talk to me!) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 January 2015, 21:37 UTC)----


Yadier Molina[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it promoted to FA.

Some reviewer questions may already be addressed in the GA review. Before its review and promotion to GA, I had nominated it for promotion to FA, for which, of course, it failed that review process. It was the first article to which I had made significant contributions that I nominated for a promotion of any type. Since I have reworked it significantly, so here's hoping this time it is much closer to qualifying.

Thank you in advance to anyone and everyone who takes up this task. If you would like me to review any article, please let me know. I will also independently look at those in the queue.


Cheers! Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 January 2015, 02:52 UTC)----


Girl Pat (1935 trawler)[edit]


Not so much a great maritime adventure, more a piece of madcap tomfoolery, with just the possibility of something more sinister behind it, the Girl Pat escapade of 1936 attracted an awful lot of press attention in 1936, a year not exactly lacking in significant events. Oddly, the episode is barely mentioned in any of the social histories of the period, and I am particularly indebted to Tim Riley and SchroCat for providing me with many of the news sources used. No blockbuster this – 4,500 words and a few nice pics. Comments invited on all aspects from all comers. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I loved this article, and my recent complaints about the depressing topics you've been choosing for FA are hereby amortised. Very little to add. I've corrected a few typos, which please check, and otherwise:

  • "supernumary" – looks very odd to me, but I have read the WP article supernumerary, and I'm sure you know what you're doing.
  • You flatter me. My simple spelling mistake (or "typo" as I like to call such) was incorporated into a pipe-link by another editor who, like you, thought I must know what I was doing. For future reference, this is a very dangerouus assumption to make; it is safer to assume the opposite. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "parliament" – lower case?
  • piping of the Bahamas looks odd with the lower case definite article inside the blue link.
  • "British Home Secretary being asked" – gerund wanted, I'd say.
  • I've deleted the sentence which added very little and wasn't going anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Times editorial" – twice if you please! The Times, God save us, is not some colonial rag, despite its current ownership. It publishes leaders or, if you are feeling posh, leading articles, and not editorials.
  • I always get slightly intimidated when you get into Mr Riley mode, so I have done as you suggest, but don't shout at me when I mention that our cosmopolitan readership (which includes Americans) doesn't always follow the nuances of trad Brit usage in matters such as this and might be happier with the demotic equivalent. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right, of course, and I withdraw my objection to "editorial". Sorry to shilly-shally. Tim riley talk 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "one of two persons" – as you quoted Nanki-Poo to me, let me quote Pooh-Bah back at you: "They are not young ladies; they are young persons". A roundabout way of saying that it might read more naturally as "two people", or even "two men" unless it was a greengroceress.
  • Footnote 3: "Lloyd's" – possessive apostrophe not right, I think. Is it thus in the source?
  • Well, the organisation's full name is "Lloyd's of London", with apostrophe (unlike the bank), so I think "Lloyd's" is right. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I think I had some mad syntactical delusion that it needed two possessive apostrophes. Ignore me: I'll be all right in a moment. Tim riley talk 16:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Footnote 5: As the first sentence is "according to", the second one ought to be too, I think.

And that really is my lot. Wikipedia is in your debt for this rollicking article, though it is an absolute disgrace that while SchroCat and I have been flogging our guts out chez Olivier, you've been having a high old time with Girl Pat. Tim riley talk 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for these entertaining and usually relevant commnets. Attended to, except as indicated. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very enjoyable indeed. A few minor glitches or possibly my misunderstanding:

  • "was a temporary media sensation" I'm unaware of any permanent ones. Perhaps "caused a brief media sensation"?
  • Not that "brief", since the headlines stretched over six months or so, on a more or less daily basis. and continued intermittently thereafter. I have changed to "caused a media sensation" without reference to transience or brevity. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the engineer returned, nonplussed, to Grimsby." If he went back to Grimsby, how was he nonplussed? I'd see nonplussed if he had hung around at Dover waiting for he knew not what. Possibly, "confused"?
    • I've always been both nonplussed and confused when I've found myself in Grimsby! - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • SchroCat's helpful intrevention notwithstanding, the issue here is what is meant by "nonplussed". Traditionally it means surprised, confused, not knowing what's going on, but to an extent its meaning has migrated to something almosed exactly opposite, i.e. insoucient, unfazed etc. Being a fairly elderly geezer educated in the 60s and 70s I only connect with the original meaning, but I have reworded as you suggest, to avoid misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " marauders" surely simply thieves.
  • Maybe, but "marauders" has I think the right sense of a banditry or piracy possibly, so I'd prefer to keep it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It may be worth mentioning at some point that British Guiana is today Guyana.
  • " to Moore's proposal" I might add a "to lose the vessel" to this.
  • "minor was vessels" is "was" meant to be "war"?
  • You appear inconsistent in capitalisation of "Parliament" (see note 3)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, all fixed now. I'm glad you liked the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Llywrch[edit]

Interesting to learn what made the news rags on one side of the Atlantic at the same time Ma Barker & John Dillinger were front page news over here. And the article does a good job of reporting it. However, I have two concerns:

  1. In the first sentence, "was a temporary media sensation" This sounds clunky to me. Maybe "was a transient media sensation" or "was a nine days' wonder".
  • I agree with you about the clunk, but I don't honestly think that "transient" is any better than "temporary". The matter was in the news for too long to be termed a "nine days' wonder", and was not swiftly forgotten – it lingered in the news for years. So I've chosen a simpler option – see Wehwalt's comments above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. While reading the article, I constantly wondered why Orsborne do all this? Did he have some plan or goal? Was he compelled to do this out of some kind of mental disability -- say a dissociative disorder? Or was he just a guy with no hope of a better life who did this out of existential despair?

-- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Orsborne gave two different reasons for his actions. In court he claimed he was taking a joyride at his employers' expense, in response to their suggestion that he lose the ship as part of an insurance scam. Much later he said he was acting under secret orders from British Naval Intelligence, in a scheme to undermine General Franco. I find that impossible to believe: the right-wing British government was generally pro-Franco and the security services markedly more so (the commies were the enemy). However, we won't get access to the confidential papers for another 20 years or more, so we'll have to wait to see if there was anything in Orsborne's unlikely claim. Until then, and perhaps thereafter, who knows? One theory is probably as good as another. Thank you for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I'm struggling to find anything but minor quibbles on this rollocking read! (Minor quibbles dealt with here - fee free to rv with anything you don't agree with). A couple of others have questioned the "temporary media sensation", so I am sure you will have dealt with it by the time you get down to here. One question arises, which is over the name of the article: as there is nothing to stop it, should this not be named [[Girl Pat]], rather than [[Girl Pat (1935 trawler)]], as per WP:NC-SHIP?

More anon when I've got to the end of this very enjoyable and amusing tale! - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Finishing off...

Capture, detention and arrest

  • "With Girl Pat been secured and under guard" may need a tweak

Hearings, trial and sentence

  • Doesn't the last sentence of the previous section ("They were remanded in custody to await deportation") cover the same ground as the first sentence here ("The Orsborne brothers were held in custody, pending a hearing before the Georgetown magistrates to determine whether they should be deported to face charges in England")?

Aftermath

  • I presume "minor was vessels" is supposed to be a "minor war vessels"?

A rollocking good read, highly enjoyable and yet encyclopaedcally writted and neutral throughout. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all dealt with except the somewhat vexed question of the title. The trouble is, there have been other boats called Girl Pat, apart from the renowned trawler. The article mentions one that was arrested for the theft of antiquities in Greek waters, in the 1960s. There was another, advertised for sale in December 1948, described as a "1947 35-ft motor sailer". There was also a racehorse of the same name, active but not particularly successful in the 1952–53 period. Of course, none of these is half as notable as the original Girl Pat, but I'm still a bit chary about using the title unadorned. And the added description leaves potential readers in no doubt about the nature of the subject. I will canvass some opinion on this from other reviewers, before deciding what to do here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right to leave it: if it were HMS Girl Pat I'd suggest removing the post nominal, but as she is just an unadorned name, the title is probably helpful. I've created a redirect page at Girl Pat, just to cover that option. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Lining up alongside SchroCat on this. We have a consensus, meseems. Tim riley talk 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 15 January 2015, 17:46 UTC)----


2008 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status and since then I have been working to improve it to FA status. I believe it is very close to FA status as it fulfils most of the FA criteria. The article is far more comprehensive than any of the other football match articles that currently have FA status, and all of the facts in the article have been rigorously fact-checked (or are in the process of being checked). Any comments that will help the article reach FA status are welcome, regardless of the criterion they address.

Thanks, – PeeJay 15:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC) You already know it is great so things that could make it better:

  • Some editors might expect a coma after "2008" in the opening sentence.
  • Done. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some editors would question the need for references being called in the lead. Those facts might need a ref but we are confident in your sourcing throughout the body.
  • Done. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Does the FA Community Shield deserve extra mention?
  • I think it does, as it was the most recent meeting between the two sides not in the league, plus it went to penalties like this game. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Makes perfect sense.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider wikiliking "legs" or the idea of "aggregate".
  • Done. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "United won their first five group games before ..." That paragraph is ripe for expansion.
  • Done, although I am worried about the balance between the United and Chelsea sections. – PeeJay 01:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider expansion: "The quarter-final matches represented the fifth and sixth times these two clubs had met in Europe in just over 12 months."
  • Done. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ronaldo did great on the way to the final. Who else eas essential to the run?
  • Not sure what you mean here. I think the important players are already mentioned in the "Route to the final" section. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "...to be played over two days." Doesn't initially read as you likely intended. Consider modifying.
  • Done. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • FieldTurf? Are you kidding me? Can you combine those two paragraphs?
  • Done. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In recent years, the Champions League final has been given an identity of its own with a unique logo, a design concept, and an overall theme." Cool, what was it?
  • Annoyingly, I could easily describe the visual identity given to this game from pictures in the article, but I can't find any reliable sources available to cite it. I'll see if I can get hold of my copy of the match programme (I left it at home when I came down to uni), but I don't know if it will contain the info I need. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "As for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place at the GUM Centre in Moscow's Red Square on 3 April 2008" This read as it happening every year in Moscow. Consider modifying.
  • I've changed the wording slightly. Hopefully this will avoid confusion, but if not, I can't work out how to modify it without completely dismantling the sentence. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Why was capacity reduced?
  • Not sure, but I'll try to find out. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The line seems silly and almost unneuteral. We all know how ticket sales work. You don't need to cut it but it hurts my head a bit. "As for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place at the GUM Centre in Moscow's Red Square on 3 April 2008"... but then the section gets even more confusing. Were Man United supporters from outside of the UK gobbling up tickets? It just reads off.
  • I don't understand what you're getting at here. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I reads like Man United supporters were more interested which I assume isn't the case. Of course, if that is what the sources allude to hen you have to go with it.
  • It seems odd, doesn't it? According to the clubs, their allocations were both completely taken, but the UEFA source said Chelsea still had a couple of thousand to sell the day before the game. I've tried to give that section as much balance as I can, but like you say, we have to go with the sources. – PeeJay 01:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not knowing the history, refs don't give goals: " in which he gave a controversial goal to Liverpool's Luis García"
  • Reworded. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand there is a ref but it doesn't mean much without knowing the history: "just as Teddy Sheringham and Ole Gunnar Solskjær did in 1999"
  • Done. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The term "cagey" was said. Overall, the jargon could be reduced.
  • I'm not sure how to reduce the jargon without making the article sound stale and uninteresting. Without a little jargon, we'd end up with "X kicked the ball into the net and it was awarded as a goal". – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Understood.
  • Ref 71 is used so much in the actual game analysis that I am concerned about unintended plagiarism. The prose are fince but the general thought is close. Is there a way t mix it up?
  • I'll see about remedying that. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Penalty shootout" is all but devoid of references.
  • I'm also working on that too. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Post-match" left me wanting just a little more explanation.
  • Which bit exactly needs more explanation? – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not sure. I was reading it and just wanted more. I think that is a good sign! If you can think of anything throw it in.
  • Ronaldo is wikilinked too much.
  • Really? Apart from in the "Details" section, he isn't linked more than once per level 2 section, which I believed wasn't excessive linking. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I typically wikilink only in the lead, once in the main body, and maybe tables and captions. An extra one in the body isn't going to be a big deal and might actually be useful.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the references list. publishers (websites) are written in italics.
  • Yes, they are. Should they not be? – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've always read that websites are publishers that are not italicized. I have seen it though so maybe it is a different style.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The "cite web" and "cite news" templates utilise a parameter called "website". If that parameter causes the text to be italicised, I assume that's because the MOS requires it. – PeeJay 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There are too many images aligned to the right. It is not necessary to stagger images. Of these, they should not come directly after third level headings. The picture of Ľuboš Micheľ is facing the wrong way and there might actually be to many for certain sections.
  • Do you mean there are too many aligned to the left? If not, I don't understand your concern here apart from moving the image of Lubos Michel to the right so he faces the centre of the page. – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... my beer must have been done by that point of the article Yes, lEFT not right.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In that case, I think this is done. – PeeJay 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Great read overall. If it wasn't for the image issues and the fact that it was Man U, I would encourage you to go for FA. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to most of your concerns. The ones I've left blank I will see to when I have a little more time (uni work is very taxing!). – PeeJay 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 10 January 2015, 15:48 UTC)----


Car costs[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I found this issue very interesting. I've been reading in different sources the automobile costs subject for a long time, and I tried to contribute to bring to wikipedia a comprehensive, neutral and well-written article about this subject.

I'd like to know what can be improoved on this article.

Thanks, João Pimentel Ferreira 11:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments by Doncram
I haven't done a Peer Review for a long time. Sorry my comments are a bit random.
  • I very much like the topic and a lot of the content. It's a useful, valid topic for Wikipedia, because of its importance to consumers, its decision relevance when choosing amongst possible car purchases, etc. And consequently its widespread coverage in car-cost calculators online, in news articles including car reviews, in journals and so on.
  • Perhaps the article should be moved/renamed to "Costs of car ownership" which seems to be the most common phrase; Google search on that. Costs of car ownership in practice includes operating costs. "Car costs" might imply merely car purchase prices and is not the standard phrase.
  • The "toolbox" automated reports available to the right here seem not helpful for this article right now. One suggests that the lead is too long perhaps. I notice terms given in the lead emphasizes "Fixed" and "Variable" cost types, while section titles are "Standing" and "Running", instead. I suggest in the lead just using Standing and Running terms. Then in a new first sentence or two in each of those sections, explain what those are, partly by describing them as fixed costs -- that don't vary by how much the car is driven -- and variable costs, that do vary.
  • Also the automated report points out, which I did not notice, that usual/required order of later sections should be "See also" before "References" before "External links", rather than as now appears.
  • The Economics of automobile usage (E) article should be more prominently linked, including as a "See also" item. There are links from there and also from Effects of the car on societies article, to here. This article is properly separate, split away from the others. When this one is better organized, the treatment at the other articles should be revised (edited down at the E article).
  • This article should be presented upfront as clearly focusing on the costs of car ownership for the car owner/user. As opposed to public/social costs properly considered in the E article. It can't be said that this is focusing on "out-of-pocket" costs, I don't think, because depreciation is not out-of-pocket each year?
  • There may be some confusion for readers about depreciation and about the car finance and cost of capital sections, maybe. Best to avoid requiring too much of the average reader. Hmm. In truth, for a consumer trying to compare lifetime total costs of one car model (say Honda civic regular vs. equivalent Honda civic hybrid), one could properly focus on the expected actual cash outflows (out-of-pocket costs) year-by-year, summarized in a present value calculation that uses an appropriate interest rate. With car payments (principal and interest) included when they are paid. Non-cash depreciation is not to be included. Or, equivalently, one could focus on year-by-year sums of out-of-pocket operating costs plus depreciation in each year. Present value of those would be the same as before, if what's called economic depreciation(?) is used. I suggest revising the "Depreciation" section to call it "Purchase and depreciation" maybe. Then perhaps: "Acquisition costs, including purchase price plus any sales taxes and all upfront fees for delivery and initial registration, comprise a large part of the costs of car ownership. Acquisition costs may be paid upfront or by installments, typically each month with interest costs added. The full financial value of the car, initially, is the total acquisition cost. In each month and year of use, the financial value declines, with depreciation being the term for the amount of decline in a period. Depreciation reflects the wasting away of value of the asset as it is used over time." I dunno, am trying to keep it simple.
  • Car repair costs aren't totally unpredictable. They can be highly variable, sure, but on average they can estimated. If you buy an extended warranty that covers repairs, there is no unpredictability at all.
  • Add a section on variations in car costs by geographical area, e.g. across countries and in the U.S. across states, with some example numbers. E.g. based on this CNN Money article reporting on a BankRate study, perhaps summarize (my words): "According to one 2013 study, costs for U.S. drivers average $3,201, varying from $2,203 (in Oregon) to $4,233 (in Georgia). There are large differences across states in sales taxes, in insurance, and in average mileage driven." Hmm, I see now that that source and similar sentence is used in Effects of the car on societies#Costs article. Reports about it and other studies belong here.
  • Good that you cite the U.S. IRS allowance for cost per mile. That's an important, widely used benchmark. A chart showing what the IRS allowed, over time, would be good to add and there are probably sources covering that.
  • Add a section on electric / hybrid / vs. traditional cars; I've seen such comparisons in news articles, maybe reporting on Consumer Reports studies. Total lifetime costs of car ownership follow a different pattern for these types (e.g. for hybrids an owner could expect higher upfront costs and lower per-mile operating costs; which type to choose depends on your forecast for future gas prices and for your driving mileage).
  • What about car costs in history / over time? The advent of Model T mass production of cars brought purchase costs down hugely. I've seen this described in terms of the number of work hours for the average worker, dropping dramatically. Look for a graph to include on this?
  • Add a section on costs of car ownership for companies, as opposed to individuals. There should be lots of sources on fleet management. Costs like repairs which are highly variable for an individual car can be very predictable for fleets. Perhaps here, can note about depreciation there are different possibilities. Seek a specific example (source needed though) to say something like: "In U.S. companies typically depreciate cars on a straight-line basis over 5 years for tax purposes", if that is true, perhaps. For cars, unlike most equipment and other hard assets, the widespread availability of used car value websites may make it possible to measure depreciation specifically for each vehicle, by looking up year-to-year change in value. Or that could be mentioned in earlier depreciation section instead.
  • I really enjoy the Ivan Illich passage quoted in section now titled "Kinetic speed vs. Virtual speed". Perhaps that section should be retitled "Critical perspectives" or "Alternative perspectives" perhaps, and include Illich's critique but edited down, and also perhaps find other perspectives? The long quote plus the longish example illustrating a somewhat-off-the-topic concept of the "speed" calculations, seems too much. It seems too specific and one-sided, like it is "undue coverage" of one view, and Illich's specific terms, for a general encyclopedia article. What it adds though, is perspective that car ownership vs. using mass transit, as an individual consumption choice, has impacts for the individual such as, per Illich: greater amount of work hours required according to Illich (but what if the fact you have a car enables you to live further away from work in more affordable housing? or it's required to have a job at all, or it enables you to have a better job? there is real consumption though) and maybe less exercise as you don't walk/bicycle/etc. Adding another critical view or two for balance would help. It can be noted that car ownership costs are greatly affected by public subsidies/taxes; link to E article about whether car ownership should be subsidized vs. mass transit, etc., keeping this article clearly focused on out-of-pocket costs for consumer, in whatever setting created by government.
  • Your main challenges in developing the article are 1) to find and use more reliable sources, 2) cover more subtopics, but also 3) to organize it more clearly. I think the article can be expanded to be longer. Then a future priority would be to reduce it and tighten up the writing, but leave that until later
Again, great job to develop the article thus far! Hope these comments help. --doncram 02:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 January 2015, 11:28 UTC)----


Torino F.C.[edit]

I've spent the better course of a year translating the correlating Italian article on Torino Football Club and would like some feedback

Thanks, Danieletorino2 (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Danieletorino2: First of all congratulations for having translated all this huge text. I think there's an overused reference. Specially in the history sections. I haven't read the original source, but couldn't this fall into plagiarism? You may consider looking for other sources covering the same periods. --JordiGran (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 January 2015, 04:18 UTC)----


Jackalope[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it occurred to me that it would be a very fun and amusing TFA some day on April Fool's day or a similar event, and wondered if there would be the remotest possibility that it could be brought up to Featured Article status. I've been involved with about 12 TFA articles so far, and so I know the how to get something there, but my question for peer reviewers is if you think this topic would be doomed from the outset (I will note that Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo has been a TfA, so I don't think I am lowering the standards here). I know it's nowhere close now, but I'm curious if anyone thinks it's worth the trouble to try. In short, is it possible to find enough reliable sources to expand and verify this article to a FAC-passable standard? My preliminary check give me this and this. Thoughts? Comments? Volunteers?

Thanks, Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Finetooth comments[edit]

Yes. I think it's worth the trouble to try, and I would enjoy working on this. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On further review, maybe not. I found some stuff, but most is fluff. Enough, enough! It might be possible to compile a section of folklore analysis, a sort of critical review of the jackalope, based on scholarly publications. Jackalope as griffin parody? Jackalope as tourist lure. (See biggest ball of twine.) There's a jackalope in Dubois, Wyoming, that's rideable, according to unreliable sources. Jackalope as mechanical bull? Finetooth (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL! Well, have a lot of fun, that's the main thing! Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2015, 03:05 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

COBOL[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe its nearly ready to become a GA. However, I've had little interaction with other editors, and I'd like to get other people's suggestions on how to improve it first.

Thanks, EdwardH (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't understand the Aggregate data section. Records, elementary items and group items are defined, then an example is given, but the text after the example does not explain which parts of the example are records, elementary or group items. Also, the grammar in "Data items containing subordinate items which are not subordinate to another item" is awkward. I suppose this means something like top-level items in the hierarchy of items, but it could just as well refer to subordinate items that are subordinate to the first set of items, but not to any other items (if the hierarchy of data items were a DAG, think multiple inheritance). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Procedure division section needs some work. I think control flow might be moved before procedures, because the latter presupposed that the readers knows what a GO TO does (which I think the youngest generation of beginning programmers might not know...). Also, the explanation of "mines" is a bit incomplete. Do I understand correctly that when execution reaches the end of a function, it reaches the next function (in textual order) instead of the caller? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyus: thanks a lot for the comments and edits! I'll work on the Aggregate data and Procedure division sections ASAP. Regarding execution: yes, it will try to "fall into" the following procedure in the source. However, when the procedure(s) have been reached via a PERFORM, execution will return to the caller at the end of the (last) procedure. By the way, how effective do you think the diagrams in section Procedures were in illustrating control flow and mines? EdwardH (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The left one caught my eye and got me reading the text. The right one is less clear, I think, unless you already know how a procedure call works in pretty much any other language, in which case it isn't a very interesting diagram. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyus: thanks, I'll get rid of the rid of the right diagram then. EdwardH (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2015, 19:49 UTC)----


General[edit]

Akshay Kumar[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I needs advice for improving this article up to GA level. My main concerns are prose, comprehensiveness and neutrality of the article. All helpful comments are welcome.

Thanks.Skr15081997 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 25 January 2015, 08:45 UTC)----


Crash Course (YouTube)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been 2½ years since the Start-class classification, only 6 months after the series began airing, and the article has changed substantially in that time. To get clearer direction, we need a reassessment of the article's quality, and of the problems and strengths as it stands.

Thanks, ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 23:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 24 January 2015, 23:24 UTC)----


Exilant Technologies[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get my first article (from scratch) reviewed by peers for help in advance on any technical / ethical errors that I could have introduced inadvertently. The review will help me to modify the article while it is waiting in queue. Thanks in advance for the help to be extended towards me. Looking forward to contribute more , with the additional knowledge gained through this workflow.

Thanks, Devopam (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 January 2015, 12:38 UTC)----


The Wallflowers[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a lot of work into this article over the past year or so and want to get some feedback on how to get it to the best it can be.

Thanks, SydKat (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 16 January 2015, 23:48 UTC)----


Blackrock (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because having recently expanded it significantly and successfully nominated it for GA, I now intend to nominate it for FAC as soon as my current FAC nomination (The Spirits Within) is passed or closed. As I just nominated that FAC yesterday, I anticipate it not closing or being passed for several weeks, thus giving this peer review plenty of time. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Prhartcom[edit]

I'm happy to copy edit this article. I can see that it certainly is a Good Article. I am working on it now and have these notes/questions:

  • "After witnessing three males interrupting the couple and then raping Tracy"; Let's break this into more than one sentence. Giving the rape action it's own sentence will make this passage a little more dramatic instead of the offhand remark it seems to be now.
Have a look at the changes I made and let me know what you think. I may have gone into too much detail. Also as you have not seen the film I think I should clarify something that may be confusing. As stated in the article, the rape scene was edited in the Australian version (the version I have seen). While Toby is clearly annoyed when his consensual sex with Tracy is interrupted, it isn't clearly shown onscreen if he joins the other males in raping her, though he is shown running away together with them, and later pleads guilty to her rape. Freikorp (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That fixed it and that was an important one to get right; it's really good now. I don't think the point you mentioned needs to go into the article. Notice that further down I added that Ricko had found Tracy "walking" on the beach, as opposed to Ricko found Tracy on the beach, which could have meant that he found her motionless body. Feel free to change the word to "wandering" or similar. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A comma should usually not be placed before an "and" when that word separates two phrases, e.g. "He is torn between the need to tell the truth and the desire to protect his friends". It should usually be placed at the end of an introductory phrase, e.g. "As Ricko finishes his confession, the police arrive". MOS:COMMA has some comma notes, but the MOS is not designed to instruct grammar. I am interested in hearing what you think about this. I am making the comma corrections to this article; feel free to revert any changes.
  • I believe themes and critical analysis exist in the present, rather than the past, tense. The filmmaker or critic may have written their piece yesterday, but their work speaks today. This writing practice tends to avoid passive voice and lends to reading that feels more alive, while still keeping the required encyclopedic style. (An exception would be a direct quote; the interview occurred in the past.) I am interested in hearing what you think about this. I am making the tense corrections to this article; feel free to revert any changes.
  • It's okay to correct punctuation/typographical errors in a quote as long as we do not affect the speaker's intended meaning, since the punctuation marks were not actually spoken (See WP:QUOTE). I am correcting punctuation in the quotes (e.g. fixing a run-on sentence); feel free to revert any changes.
  • A person's name should not be mentioned in an article for the first time without giving some sort of introduction to who they are. We shouldn't assume the reader will already know and we don't force the reader to interrupt their reading to click on the click. We are obligated to briefly provide a word or three that introduces them so that the reader can put them into context. I am providing brief introductions to the people to this article who don't already have them; please feel free to revert or make any changes.
I'm very pleased with all the changes you've made thus far. Freikorp (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(The same goes for places.) This article has obviously had a thorough copy edit before I stumbled into it; there are long passages without a single error. Still, I suppose it's interesting how another pair of eyes can find things others had not. Thanks for trusting me enough to have a look at it. I should finish it later today. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just asking if the sources really say that the director really cut ten whole minutes from the film to improve the rating? That sounds unlikely considering shots are just seconds long; think how many shots that would be. The source isn't online so I hope I am not causing you a trip to the library. If that's what the sources say then it's fine; I suppose the director cut shots from all over the movie as opposed to just the rape scene as the article implies.
It's all good. I had to search through microfilm to find the articles, but I made PDF copies of all of them. If you want any I can email them to you. Unfortunately I forgot to write down the page numbers for some of them (you may have noticed some offline sources have page numbers and others do not) so i'm anticipating someone making me go back up to the library to get them when this is at FA, but that shouldn't take up more than 45 minutes of my time. The source states: "Vidler shot 110 hours of film. In January, at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, he screened 100 minutes of it, which immediately scored an R rating back home. The rape scenes were deemed "too harrowing and confronting" for an MA rating ("which was absolutely essential," says the producer of Blackrock, David Elfick, "if we were going to reach our 15- to 18-year-old target audience"). So Vidler had to cut 10 minutes from the film." Granted I don't think 10 minutes of rape scene were cut from the film either, i'm curious as to what else was cut. Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Robert Drewe was linked both to Robert Drewe and Robert Drew (in the citation). I assumed the first is correct and corrected the second. I am also a bit confused why a novelist would review a movie; he had no description in the article so I added "Australian novelist and critic" ("Australian" because people with many nationalities are in that section and his perspective is described). I do not know if this is right so please check everything I did and make any corrections.
Yes the first one was correct (or at least the spelling is). I assume it's the same Robert Drewe as the novelist as that Robert Drewe also worked as a reporter for several Australian newspapers, according to referenced information at his wiki article. Freikorp (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You could archive the web sources (thank-you on behalf of future readers). (I need to do this too on some of my open articles.)
Done. 3 of the sources couldn't be archived. Freikorp (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice you use the {{sfn}} template to refer to your Bibliography; that's great; too bad you didn't do that consistently for all sources. (I understand; I do when I start or rewrite an article from scratch but not when I improve an existing article.)
I've been under the impression that you only use sfn for books and journal articles. My first successful FA was actually Murder of Leigh Leigh, and that's what I was told to do there. Do you use it for all sources? Freikorp (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do, here are three of my examples (here, here, and here). That's silly; the documentation from {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} say nothing of that; of course it's good for all kinds of citations. I also couldn't find anyone at that FAR mentioning it. Congrats on that FA; that article looks extremely detailed.
Wonderful that you are providing archives to the online sources and astounding that you have decided to convert to sfn; I am quite happy and impressed at your dedication! Prhartcom (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have completed the review. Very good job on this article! I believe it is well-written and comprehensive in it's coverage of the film. I like how the Themes section appears first below the Plot summary and Cast list. Some portions of the article, such as the closing paragraph of the Reception section, achieve the "brilliant" writing requirement for FA. It was interesting for me to learn of mateship and of Heath Ledger's debut credited role (he first appeared to us Yanks in 10 Things I Hate About You), as well to become submersed in Australian culture (I am currently also doing that as I watch my guilty pleasure Beauty and the Geek Australia). From just reading the summary, I'm afraid I agree with David Rooney's assessment of the film. I may not ever be given a chance to see it anyway. Best wishes as you take this article to FA! Let's continue working together. Prhartcom (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 January 2015, 13:35 UTC)----


The Long Bright Dark[edit]

I've spent the last few weeks doing substantial work on the article. "The Long Bright Dark" was promoted to GA status on January 5, 2015, and eventually, my ultimate goal is to polish the article so that it is FA worthy. I would like some feedback on the current state of the article, kinks that are present, and how I can improve on them. Though I likely won't immediately go through the FA process at this time, I will try my best to commit and implement these changes.

Thanks in advance, DAP388 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 9 January 2015, 22:55 UTC)----


2013 Chicago Bears season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to send this through GAN, but I want to have a peer review beforehand for extra feedback.

Thanks, ZappaSJSMati 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 January 2015, 04:49 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Sleaford[edit]

Sleaford is a market town in the English county of Lincolnshire, with a population of over 17,000 people and a history dating back to the Iron Age. When I started working on the article back in September 2014, it was 37,000 bytes long, had 44 citations and its structure and prose were inconsistent; I've largely rewritten it and it's now over 130,000 bytes long with more than 300 references. I do believe it's complete in its scope at least, and I now feel it is time to put it up for review. My aim would be to get this to FA and I am looking for any constructive feedback which might help me to get it there.

Many thanks, Noswall59 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The opening sentence is rather confusing as Lincolnshire as a ceremonial county spans the East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. Keith D (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Keith D:I didn't realise that. I've changed it to the non-metropolitan county, which I believe is (entirely) in the East Midlands. Many thanks Keith, --Noswall59 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Comments from Rodw This is an impressive article. I know it can be a challenge to find sources etc for local history on towns in England. A few comments:

Lead

  • "ceremonial county" could be wikilinked to Ceremonial counties of England for non-UK readers
    • As above for Keith's comment.
  • Iron Age could be wikilinked (as could Roman & Anglo-Saxon) or do we assume these are well known enough for readers not to need to find out more from the relevant article? I note Bronze Age and other periods are wikilinked later in the article)
    • Wikilinked
  • I think Bishop of Lincoln should definitely be wikilinked
    • Done
  • I'm not a grammar expert but "which grew the fastest of any town in the county during the 1990s" didn't read clearly for me.
    • "which underwent the fast growth..."?
      • perhaps "...underwent the fastest growth..."— Rod talk 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've tweaked it.

Geography

Topography
  • Civil Parish could be linked to Civil parishes in England and I'm not sure it should be capitalised.
    • Done
  • North East and South East shouldn't be capitalised (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Compass points)
    • Done
  • You've told us about the soil but what is the underlying geology?
    • Okay, I will take a look at this - I am not a geographer, but I will have a look at what sort of info is included in other articles.
Climate
  • Does Cavendish = Cavendish, Suffolk?
    • The Met Office source doesn't specify, but I assume so and therefore have changed accordingly.
  • Is " hail the size of golf balls were reported in Sleaford and other parts of central Lincolnshire" supported by refs 7-9 at the end of the paragraph
    • Yes, in the Met Office source under the "Rainfall" tab: "In Lincolnshire on 25 August 2001 there were reports of hail the size of golf balls at Sleaford, Coningsby and Spilsby in the south of the county causing damage to aircraft, cars and greenhouses."
  • Capitalisation of West and North (as above)
    • Done

History

Etymology
  • Any particular reason for using the informal "Testa de Nevill" rather than "Book of Fees" or "Liber feodorum"?
    • Done
      • You have it linking to Book of Fees but the text shows as Testa de Nevill, I just wondered why?— Rod talk 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I meant to correct that too, done now.
Early
  • The word "area" is used a lot in the first two sentences.
    • I have replaced one with vicinity and then referred back to it later.
  • Should "Bourne" be Bourne, Lincolnshire? (wikilinked later)
    • Yes, I have wikilinked it and removed the later wikilink
  • In the lead River Slea is wikilinked and capitalised but not here. "river Slea" is used and capitalised on 2nd use.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph (from While only... ) seems very long - although I can't see anything with the grammar I would chop it into two (or three) sentences.
    • Done, and tweaked the wording a bit too.
  • Capitalisation of East
    • Done
Medieval (I think wp prefers the term Middle Ages)
    • Corrected
  • Saxons & "within two centuries" in the previous sentence we have "c. 5th century–1066" so can we be more specific about which two centuries? Is the 8th & 9th mentioned later?
    • I don't have the original source on me right now, but I believe it meant that, within 200 years of the Romans departing, the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have been in Sleaford, i.e. by the 6th-7th centuries, when the burial ground was uncovered. I will check the sources later to check, but I have amended it for now.
  • Would it be worth linking watermill?
    • I suppose it won't hurt, done.
  • Should it be "Britano-Roman" or "Romano-British"?
    • Changed to the latter.
  • St Denys' Church, Sleaford should be wikilinked
    • Done.
  • Is a new town "planted" (or constructed or similar)?
    • I do believe Beresford used the term "planted", but I have changed - I think he used it more in the sense of "a planted town" rather than as a verb.
  • "and was the manor held by the bishop in 1086" something about the grammar but I'm not sure what
    • How about "and identifies it as the manor held by the bishop in 1086"?
      • Better I think.— Rod talk 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Burgage should be wikilinked
    • Done
  • Should "demesne" be capitalised - both upper & lower case in the same sentence
    • It's not capitalised in its own article, so I've changed to lower case.
  • I have a concept of a wapentake as a Hundred but others may not.
  • Is Flaxwell a term/place which would be recognised today?
    • It is the name of the wapentake ([2]) and not a village or other settlement. If I asked most people today, they probably wouldn't recognise it. I gather that it isn't convention for Hundreds to have articles either.
Early modern
  • I see Edward Clinton, 1st Earl of Lincoln is wikilinked in the note but I would do this in the text to prevent potential confusion with Lord Edward Clinton or the various other Lord Clintons.
    • Done.
  • Would the grammar school mentioned be Carre's Grammar School?
    • Yes, should I change it? (It is covered in the "Education section")
      • I would clarify on 1st use.— Rod talk 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • I see Carr baronets is mentioned and wikilinked but previously we had Carre family - I presume they are part of the same family (and lost the "E" over the years) but this is unclear.
    • Yes, Carre and Carr seem interchangeable, so I have added it in parentheses.
  • Cogglesford Mill should be wikilinked
    • Done.
  • Who is Simon Pawney, is this a historian we should recognise?
    • He is a local historian who has researched the town's history ([3]). He seems to have a PhD in Historical Studies from Leicester University ([4]) and I gathered is a fairly reliable source.
      • Might be worth adding "local historian Simon Pawney" or similar.— Rod talk 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • "From the Middle Ages down to then, Sleaford had been surrounded by three main open fields: North, West and Sleaford Fields." not sure what "then" refers to and capitalisation (are these capitalised as proper names of fields or directions?).
    • They are the names of the fields; removed "then".
  • Was it North or South Rauceby and should it be wikilinked?
    • The source doesn't make this clear.

If these sorts of comments are helpful I'll come back and take a look at the rest of the article.— Rod talk 18:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Thank you very much Rod, these comments have certainly been helpful. I think it's easy to miss so many things when I've been working on it on and off for a few months, and it is very beneficial to have a fresh set of eyes look over it. Any further comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, --Noswall59 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A few more comments

History

Industrial
  • Should "Bass & Co" link to Bass Brewery & maltings to Malt house or at least make the point that this was for beer production?
    • Links added.
  • "listed" could link to listed building as non-UK readers are unlikely to know the term
    • Done.
  • Is the Thomas Parry mentioned Thomas Parry (Boston MP)?
    • Yes, link added.
  • Poor Law Union could be wikilinked & should it be capitalised?
    • Linked, and it appears to be a proper noun (e.g. [5])
Post-industrial

Administration

Politics
Local government
  • Again I would suggest chronological (and in subsequent sub sections)
    • Done, though the other two in the section are not written in the same way; public services focuses on civilian services and healthcare, then links with the armed forces; public utilities has water, and then energy.
  • Sanitary district could be linked
    • Done.

Economy

Employment

Demographics

  • I'm not sure about starting a sentence with "Statistically"...
    • Done. Though, I think I added that because of the connotations with "predominant" in this context.
  • What is the difference between "White British" in one sentence and "White English/Welsh/Scottish/British" in the next
    • That was what it was listed as in the Census data, but I think it is best summarised as White British - what do you think?

Religion

Demographics
  • should the terms "Conformist" and "Papist" be explained or wikilinked?
    • Wikilinked.
  • Do Weslyans "spring up"?
    • "The Weslyans met in Westgate" instead.
  • NEW - just noticed you have two sub heads called "Demographics" one here and one above - could another term be found for one of them?— Rod talk 08:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Parish and ecclesiastical history
  • Presumably parish in this context is an Ecclesiastical parish?
    • Yes, wikilinked an expanded.
  • Are vicars "instituted"
    • I believe so. The source uses that phrase ([6]), and it seems that the Diocese of London do as well ([7]). Is there a better term?
      • OK if that is what it is called. I know Boships are "enthroned" but hadn't heard "instituted" in this context.— Rod talk 08:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Again St Denys' Church, Sleaford could be linked here
    • Done.
  • I presume "Commonwealth" should be Commonwealth of England?
    • Done, and dates added.
Places of worskip
  • The sentence that starts "The Weslyans were a break-away ..." defeats me
    • Oh dear. Is it better now?
      • Yep a good copyeditor might offer a different wording
      • Better but still so many colons & semicolons etc - I've been accused of writing "run-on" sentences. I would split it with some full stops (but as I said I'm not a grammar expert).— Rod talk 08:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, I have replaced the semi-colon with a full stop, thus splitting the sentence.

Education

Nursery and primary education
  • Here we have "roughly 201 children" previously uncertainty was indicated by "c."
    • Replaced with Circa template.
Secondary education
  • "selective secondary school" is twice linked to Grammar school
    • Okay, I checked and both are grammar schools (see [8]). I've called them both grammars and removed the second link.
  • Is "post-war period" post 1st or 2nd war?
    • The second, which I think is the standard usage for the term. I've changed to "from the 1940s to the 1960s", which covers the period of expansion.
  • Should "academy" link to Academy (English school)?
    • Done.
  • Sixth Form might need linking for non-UK readers
    • Done.
      • The article you've linked to does not use capitals for "sixth form".— Rod talk 08:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I will look at the rest (and respond to queries above) later or tomorrow but here are a few more to consider.— Rod talk 20:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Thanks again for getting back to me. I think I've corrected all of these things, or commented where appropriate. Best wishes, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
@Noswall59:Some more strike-through and some comments above (1 new in education). I will try to finsih looking at the rest of the article later today.— Rod talk 08:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And some more comments

Education

Further and higher education
  • I don't see any mention of higher education (perhaps change the sub head title)
    • Done.

Culture

Arts and heritage
  • Again we have "roughly" (with c. elsewhere)
    • Done.
  • Is the 90,000 figure in one of the citations?
    • Yes, in the Sleaford Standard article.
  • Has the museum opened yet as it says " planned to open in January 2015"
    • Not to my knowledge and I can't find a source saying it has opened (it was being worked on in October though [9])
Sport
  • Can you give a citation for the claim "Boston Road Recreation Ground, where facilities for the club were poor" (and Brian Rowland)?
    • It's in the first citation for that paragraph - the "History" section on the club's website.
      • I've reused the ref as a comment like this often gets challenged.— Rod talk 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2014, the club roughly 600 members" grammar
    • Corrected.
  • Should Marquess of Bristol be wikilinked here?
    • Done.

Historic buildings and architectural history

  • Are all the claims in the first paragraph supported by refs 278-281? It might be useful to clarify which ref relates to which building.
    • Pevsner gives an overview. I've made it clear what the Pawney source is used for; the other two should be apparent from their titles ("Town's former magistrates' court to be turned into snooker hall" Lincolnshire Echo 26 May 2010 and "Drinking Fountain, Market Place, Sleaford (HER number 64719)" Heritage Gateway).
  • Would "H.E. Kendall" be Henry Edward Kendall?
    • Yes, I've linked him, but all of the sources I've used say H.E. Kendall. I have found a journal article discussing sessions house in depth, but I wonder if this might be source-overload? (It is David Brock "The Competition for the Design of Sleaford Sessions House, 1828" Architectural History 27 pp. 344-355 [10])
  • "Gothic style" could be linked to Gothic architecture
    • Done.
  • "The southern side" southern side of what - are we still talking about the market place?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • We have "Carre's Hospital" here and "Carre Hospital" in note 4 - consistency between them would be good - is ti worth mentioning that this was built on the site of the house of the Carre family (see here)?
    • Changed to Carre's Hospital
  • "Along Eastgate is Carre's Hospital, built in the early 19th century, in Gothic, also by Kendall; its chapel has a large perpendicular window over-looking a courtyard." grammar but not sure what.
    • Tweaked - okay now?
  • The second paragraph has lots of claims which could do with individual citations
    • Which parts specifically? Everything before the first citation is covered by that citation, and the only thing in the next group not covered by Pevsner is Money's Mill, which is cited too.
      • Each claim eg the council offices were built in 1850s, Alvey School (1850s), the mill operated until 1895 etc.— Rod talk 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pevsner could be linked to Nikolaus Pevsner on 1st use (I see you do this on 2nd mention)
    • Done

Notable Sleafordians

  • Is "religious controversialist" a common phrase?
    • Probably not, but it's how he's described in the ODNB. I can link it to Wiktionary if necessary.
  • "couching cataracts" is not a phrase I'm familiar with
    • It's an ancient treatment, but not one that is used anymore. I have wikilinked it.
      • Thanks I've learnt something new.— Rod talk 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Should George Bass be included as he is on the Aswarby article (a seperate entity to Sleaford)
    • I had wondered this myself. I have removed him, given that he's covered at Aswarby.
  • You could use a pic of one of the famous faces to illustrate this section.

References

  • Should ref 5 (NFU) have an accessed date
    • It is a publication not a webpage. I can add one if you'd like...
  • Ref 13 - accessdate (I would also shorten the title)
    • Done.
  • Ref 58 & 59, 62, 67 etc think we are supposed to add the date it was archived
    • All of these have been corrected. I will look for more.
  • Ref 63 could be done as a note
    • Done.
  • Ref 81, 118, 120 I think we are supposed to give both date of publication & date accessed
    • Okay, then I will need to go over all the news articles.
  • Ref 144 do we need a publisher (I know Hansard but others might not) particularly as formatted differently at 219 & 220
    • Changed 144 to match formatting in the other two. Also, linked Hansard.
  • Ref 206 is a 15 year old version needed as the next one is recent
    • Yes, because it makes reference to the fact that the school was constructed for 120 pupils.
  • Ref 245 has an "&" I see it is in the original however I have been told to change this to "and" elsewhere
    • Done.
  • Refs 272, 273 & 275 have web links for stories from the Sleaford Standard but 274, 276 do not - any reason?
    • Fixed one, the is not available online.
  • Refs 275 & 277 appear to be duplicates
    • Fixed.
  • I think with ONDB (Refs 299, 300, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308 etc we are supposed to include "subscription required" or similar in the ref template
    • Fixed.
  • The formatting of Ref 318 doesn't seem right (dates etc are included in link)
    • Fixed.
  • North Kestervan Council web site (eg ref 159) is giving me a server timeout error message but this may be temporary
    • It's working fine for me at the moment.
      • Working for me now as well.— Rod talk 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As you are using the same book etc with different pages several times you may want to investigate Template:Sfn or similar to make this easier for the reader
    • I will take a look at that.

General comments

  • There is a significant amount of duplication between the sections, but I'm not sure what could be done on this as it all seems to fit together logically.
    • Okay, do you feel it could prevent the article from reaching GA/FA?

I'm sure GA & FA reviewers will find loads more but I hope the comments above are useful in helping you develop the article.— Rod talk 10:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) @Rodw:. Once again, thank you for this. I have corrected most of these points, but it may take me a bit longer to go through all the references and potentially use the template too. Do you think that, once I've addressed these issues, it would be worth trying FA? Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

I always go for GA first - the reviewers often spot issues (more then I have found above) and it is a good step on the way. If you have never nominated anything at FA it can be daunting (and some of the reviewers will challenge incredible things which you had never thought of), but I wish you luck with it and well done for all the work you have put into it so far.— Rod talk 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 15:40 UTC)----


Berkhamsted[edit]

Previous peer review

I am hoping to raise the artlcle grade from C to at least B.

I previously listed this article for peer review in November but on that occassion the article did not recieve feedback, which is unstandable for various good reasons (e.g. editing was still very active). Since then the has been several excellent contributions by more experienced editors than me and 10% of the article has been moved to its own page. The article is prehaps longer than usual for a town of compariable size, however Berkhamsted is a small town with a deep and notable history.

All forms of suggestions, comments and contributions are most welcome.

Thanks, -- BOD -- 13:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC

Comments[edit]

  • These comments are general as I am not familiar with the difference between C and B grades.
  • Some of the references are inadequate. E.g. 98 and 99 appear the same. Refs should at least have the publisher, journal where applicable, date if available. Thus 98 could be {{cite web|url=http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=346252|title=Berkamstead Castle|series=Pastscape|publisher=English Heritage|year=2007|accessdate=21 December 2014}} instead of {{cite web|url=http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=346252|title=Berkamstead Castle|accessdate=21 December 2014}}
partly fixed in that instance, realising tho upgrade all citations to the highest standard is a huge job, so hiding. -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 2 is a newspaper property supplement. This is not encyclopedic. There are plenty of better sources such as [11]
fixed -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Berkhamsted is a civil parish with a designated Town Council within the administrative district (borough since 1984) of Dacorum," This is clumsy. Why "designated"? Maybe "Berkhamsted is a civil parish with a Town Council, and it is part of the borough of Dacorum,"
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the medieval period (1066 to 1495)" The medieval period started long before 1066. "After the Norman Conquest"?
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "which was generously endowed by J. Paul Getty, Jr." "generously" should not be used (except in a quotation) as it is WP:POV.
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Berkhamsted and Bulbourne valleys. It is not clear how these are related.
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Prior to the Roman invasion these mines would have belonged to the Catuvellauni people" This is an odd way of putting it. Why not in the previous paragraph that Berkhamsted was in Catuvellauni territory.
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Puzzlingly, the prologue of the Law of Wihtred states that Wihtred and the "great men" of Kent issued their legal code before a large assembly of Kentish people, "in the fifth winter of his reign, in the ninth indiction, sixth day of Rugern" (6 September 695) at "that place which is called Berghamstead"." There is some confusion here. The citations are to Oliver and Yorke. I do not have Oliver, but according to the FA article on Wihtred of Kent the laws are thought to have been issued at Bearsted. I do have Yorke, and she is not talking about Wihtred's law but a charter he issued the following year, S17, which she cites as suggesting that Wihtred's power extended into the territory of the East Saxons. However, according to the notes to S17 the leading charter authority Susan Kelly regards it as spurious. I would leave the whole thing out.
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The last part of this paragraph is not referenced.
fixed -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Evidence of late 9th century human interference with the River Bulbourne" What does this mean?
reworded -- BOD -- 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle' Manuscript D:-" The quote is not referenced and it is WP:OR. I would delete it/
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was at Berkhamsted, in early December 1066, that William the Bastard, the Duke of Normandy became William the Conqueror.[40]" This is dubious. William became king when he was crowned in W estminster Abbey. The source is dated 1847, which is far too dated and the reference wrongly dates it 2011.
fixed -- BOD-- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no reference for note 6
fixed
  • Berkhamsted Castle. There should not be 2 different sub-sections on this. The Schama comment is unreferenced and not relevant to the castle.
Schama removed. Reason for two sections, the first historical, the latter archeological. -- BOD -- 21:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Berkhamsted Castle became permanently associated with the Earls and Dukes of Cornwall" Permanently? Is it still? I would delete.
Yes it still is, see http://duchyofcornwall.org/ancient-monuments.html -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Berkhamsted was granted several more royal charters" Several more? I don't think you have referred to a previous one.
Henry II 1156 Charter is mentioned at the start of the section, it may have not been clear as the bit you quote above had the wikilink. -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "jettied urban building" What does this mean?
wikilink added -- BOD -- 22:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the castle ruins and the park were leased from Elizabeth I by Sir Edward Carey" Should not this be leased by Elizabeth to Carey?
fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting article but maybe too long and I have not read the whole of it. It needs copy editing and fuller references. There is some POV language - another example is "The Rex is a popular independent local cinema". popular is puffery. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
fixed that instance. -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note. I should add that it is a matter of opinion whether it is too long. Reculver is even longer, and it only failed FA because of an argument over whether the main editor was doing original research. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your much appreciated commentary and advice. All recommendations will be acted upon, but until Wednesday i am on a extremely limiting iPad on a very poor connection, so will try apply most ofthe edits then. Further comments and advice By any editor will of course be appreciated. -- BOD -- 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 16 January 2015, 13:06 UTC)----


History[edit]

Glad (duke)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it should be checked against WP:NPOV before its WP:GAN. Thank you for your review in advance. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 January 2015, 03:25 UTC)----


Rafael Carrera[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I consider it already contains enough information to be considered as a Good Article. It's style needs some improvement, as I am not a native English speaker and edits from top reviewers will be welcomed.

Thanks, Nerdoguate (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 26 January 2015, 03:10 UTC)----


Ancestry of the Godwins[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take the article to FAC and I would like feedback on improvements needed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
  • Comprehensiveness:
    • I'd expect some mention of the ancestry of Godwin's wife, Gytha, if we're discussing the ancestry of the Godwins. If we're just discussing the ancestry of Godwin (which the title doesn't lead me to believe) then we don't need to mention her.
  • Other sources:
    • Walker Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King has a chapter devoted to the ancestry of Harold - it includes some of the legends that grew up about how Godwin wed Gytha.
    • Rex Harold II The Doomed Saxon King also devotes a chapter to the family's ancestry.
    • Emma Mason's work The House of Godwine should also be consulted for completeness.
      • Yeah, sometimes it feels like all you do is buy more books to keep current with things...
  • Ordered.
  • Lead:
    • "and on his deathbed Edward designated Harold" ... still some ambiguity on whether or not Edward designated Harold willingly or not. Douglas William the Conqueror only is willing to go as far as "probably" and also allows that there may have been undue persuasion brought to bear on Edward at his deathbed. Bates William the Conqueror doesn't really go into it other than to state it was given to Harold by Edward. Huscroft Ruling England is also less than sure that Edward definitely nominated Harold. Huscroft in Norman Conquest is less definitive - noting that the sources aren't in total agreement.
  • Deleted.
    • "faced challenges from Scandinavia and France" - implies that it was the French king that challenged Harold - better to either go with "faced challenges from abroad" or "faced challenges from Norway and Normandy"...
    • Suggest "monopolising the English earldoms"
  • Done.
    • Much of the first paragraph is not in the body of the article and may be redundant in this article ... which should concentrate on the ancestry - not what Harold did.
  • Paragraph shortened.
    • Second paragraph - the link to Edward the Confessor is duplicate ... he's already linked in the first paragraph.
  • Removed.
  • Background:
    • Shouldn't it be "twelfth-century"?
  • Done.
    • It's not "Online Dictionary of National Biography" but "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" ... and the usual abbreviation is ODNB. DNB is reserved for the old DNB, usually.
  • Done.
  • Aethelred theory: (sorry, can't be bothered to get the ligature).
    • "according to Ann Williams" I think you can just say "Williams" here since you've already given her full name.
  • Done.
    • Link "Norman Conquest" to the correct one (stupid DAB page...)
  • Done.
    • Something garbled here "record the fact that he was grandson's grandson of Æthelred I," ...
  • Corrected.
    • "In his 2002 book, The Godwins, Frank Barlow sympathetically..." Barlow was linked above, so it's not needed here.
  • Deleted.
    • The links to Compton and Alfred the Great are also duplicated here when they are linked earlier.
    • Deleted. (Forgot to run duplink)
  • Succession:
    • "there was no living ætheling in the strict sense of a king." not sure what the last part "in the strict sense of a king" means here.
  • Corrected
  • Done.
All in all, a nice little article. Definitely needs a bit more checking of sources to make sure you've covered other aspects, and I can't really say it's complete until Gytha is covered also. But getting there!
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • "in the view of nineteenth-century historian William Hunt" – sorry to bleat on about false titles, but I really could do without this tabloidese phrasing. A definite article before "historian" will remove the pain. Likewise, later, for "historian Frank Barlow" "medieval historian Alfred Anscombe", "genealogist Lundie W. Barlow" and "Mayanist scholar and genealogist David H. Kelley". Fine in AmEng and The Sun, but not good English.
  • Ah. I have been reprimanded for this before by an editor who said it is OK in BrEng but not in AmEng. It is obviously just my illiteracy that leaving out "the" sounds right to me. Revised at popular demand.
    • "illiteracy" be damned! Your prose is some of the most elegant and enjoyable I know. Tim riley talk 20:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" – I'm with you in not italicising it, but I think we're in a minority, and I'd put it in italics before you go to FAC if I were you.
  • Done.
  • "Frank Barlow goes further" – perhaps omit his first name on this second mention?
  • Frank needed as the article discusses the views of Frank and Lundie Barlow.
    • Of course, sorry. Riley brain belatedly catching up with Riley eyes. Tim riley talk 20:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the confusion of the names Ælfmær and Æthelmær" – not quite happy with this: it reads as though the "confusion" is an established fact. May I suggest something on the lines of "According to Williams, the names Ælfmær and Æthelmær were mistakenly confused by writers after the Norman Conquest". Just a suggestion.
  • Tweaked.

This is a most pleasing article, and taught me much. After Ealdgyth's authoritative remarks my own inexpert comments are in the shade, but I hope they're of some use. Ping me when you get to FAC, please. Tim riley talk 00:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for your helpful comments Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 20 January 2015, 20:23 UTC)----


Benjamin Tillman[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC. Ben Tillman, I think speaks for himself, and defies any attempt for me to describe him. So I'll let him take the stage (ducks pitchfork) ...

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Crisco comments[edit]

  • Why not just include the Jr when you first mention his name?
He was less than two years old when his father died. I don't know of him ever using the Jr. It seems odd to call him by a name he never used.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In 1902, during a heated Senate debate, Tillman punched his fellow South Carolinian, John L. McLaurin. - doesn't seem to synch with the other parts of this paragraph
  • They believed that the previous five years had shown it was not possible to outvote African Americans; Gary and Butler deemed compromises with black leaders to be misguided—white men must be restored to their antebellum position of preeminent political power in the state. - Having a semi colon and an mdash in the same sentence feels like overkill
  • the African American from power. - missing a plural?
See below, under "farmer"--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:REDLINK, names of individual should not be redlinked
  • had little to offer the farmer, - the farmer or farmers?
I think both are acceptable and you don't have to be consistent. I'm interested in hearing what reviewers think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • farmer's groups or farmers' groups
  • Yet as governor he was sworn to uphold the rule of law. - I think this one's a sentence fragment
I've added a comma, which may help. It's the other side of the narrow line I've spoken of him walking. The dilemma of the Red Shirt as governor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Darlington riot - worth an article?
Hm, borderline, it might be best under the Dispensary heading. I looked at our existing article on that, it gets into a discussion of bottles from the dispensary, which apparently are very collectable today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Crime of '73 - Not really NPOV, though I'm sure that's what they considered it
It's to give an example of the sort of language that Tillman could sink his teeth into.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd find a way to make that more explicit, if possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The New York Times after those attacks deemed him "a filthy baboon, accidentally seated in the Senate chamber" - Cleveland or Tillman?
Cleveland was not a senator. I think it's overwhelmingly clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but it may be a point of confusion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Social Security - Dab link
  • There are a couple of duplicate links
I'll look at them. At least one is intentional due to distance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall this was a very easy read. Appears to be neutral. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably be blamed for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I've gotten those two additional points.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, why is the name "Benjamin Ryan Tillman Jr." listed separate from the boldface in the lede? Did he not use the "Jr.", effectively dropping it from his name? Just something I was wondering about. Connormah (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
He never used it that I'm aware. His father died when he was 2.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • facepalm* Just saw you answered it above. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

It isn't easy to review an article when one is striving mightily to avoid throwing up, but here are my few gleanings:

  • General: I hesitate to shove a foreign oar into American notions of political correctness, but to me it looks silly that in the main text "white" is mirrored not by the obvious "black" but by "African American" (unless you call the whites European American, I suppose). No response needed on this point, as I'm in no doubt you have your reasons, but I just offer a European perspective.
  • "snuck into Hamburg" – I am aware of this AmEng verb, but a more internationally recognised synonym might be preferable
  • "he was most proud" – "he was proudest"? Merely a suggestion, to be discarded ad lib
  • "had controlled the state prior to the Civil War" – I think a plain "before" is always preferable to "prior to".
  • "He initially was unsuccessful" – perhaps "Initially he was unsuccessful"?
I think I'll keep it. Even if don't put a comma in your version, I hear it and I think it slows the flow of the text.
  • "The lack of success" – "The failure"? (Maybe)
I wouldn't go that far. Tillman wanted too much too soon. He got it, soon enough. It just took time, the death of a rich man, further organization by the farmer, and continued frustration with the Conservatives.
  • "graft and corruption" – is there a difference?
Nepotism would be corrupt but is not graft, I guess though graft is contained within corruption. Tweaked.
  • "the slimness of his triumph" – not all that much of a triumph if so slim? Perhaps "win"?
  • "the units of the militia which had refused his orders" – clearer, I think, if "that" rather than "which"
  • "Tillman, however, refused" – there are seven "howevers" in the current article, and I'd lose some of them if I were you – this one being a case in point.
  • "80% of the value" – I believe the MoS bids us not to use the % sign in the text, but to write out "percent" for AmEng.
  • "He was uneasy as Wilson's Secretary of State" – that stopped me in my tracks till I read on. Perhaps "when" rather than "as"
  • "in support of the man" – in support of him?
Someone would roast me for using "he" or "him" to refer to two different people in the same sentence.
  • "Lyndon B. Johnson said of Tillman" – full marks to LBJ!

I cannot imagine why you felt inclined to write about this disgusting person, but you have kept a neutral tone throughout, and I can't see any obstacle to FAC in due course. – Tim riley talk 00:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and for not using the white paper bags. I did Tillman because GMU library had two books on him, and that was enough, with JSTOR, the ANB, and my 1896 material to get the job done. And my evil side was demanding its share. I'll work through these tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Except as commented, I've done them now. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 23:47 UTC)----


Alexander Hamilton[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am in the process of nominating this as a GA article, but there needs to be a review on potential corrections so the process can be minimized whenever I nominate it. I'm in the process of finding more sources for the Hamilton-Burr Duel, but want review for other sections that can be elaborated further, and check for the prospects of NPOV being violated. Please respond as soon as you can!

Thanks for reading, LeftAire (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, good work so far. I had a look mainly at referencing and have the following comments/suggestions which might help bring the article up to GA standards: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • at eight paragraphs, the lead is too long. I believe that four paragraphs is the recommended length per WP:LEAD
YesY Done. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • is there a reference/citation that could be added for this: "The important duties with which he was entrusted attest to Washington's deep confidence in his abilities and character, then and later. At the points in their relationship when there was little personal attachment, there was yet always a reciprocal confidence and respect."
YesY Although it's true, couldn't source it properly. Removed it. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this appears to be unreferenced: "Hamilton was also close to Eliza's older sister, Angelica, who eloped with John Barker Church, an Englishman who made a fortune in North America during the Revolution. She returned with Church to London after the war, where she later became a joint friend of Maria Cosway and Thomas Jefferson."
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this appears unreferenced: "Hamilton supported congressmen such as Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris, his assistant Gouverneur Morris (no relation), along with James Wilson and James Madison, to provide the Congress with the independent source of revenue it lacked under the Articles of Confederation."
YesY Removed. Can't be sourced properly. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this appears unreferenced: "It was at this time that a group of officers organized under the leadership of General Henry Knox sent a delegation to lobby Congress, led by Capt. Alexander MacDougall (see above). The officers had three demands: the Army's pay, their own pensions, and commutation of those pensions into a lump-sum payment."
YesYFixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this appears unreferenced: "The Continental Congress was never able to secure full ratification for back pay, pensions, or its own independent sources of funding." Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the first paragraph of the "Constitution and The Federalist Papers" section seems unreferenced
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this appears unreferenced: "Since the other two members of the New York delegation, Lansing and Yates, had already withdrawn, Hamilton was the only New York signer to the United States Constitution. He then took a highly active part in the successful campaign for the document's ratification in New York in 1788, which was a crucial step in its national ratification."
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • there are several sentences in the "Report on Public Credit" section that appear unreferenced
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the second paragraph in the "Jay Treaty and Britain" section appears unreferenced
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this wording doesn't seem quite right: "and James Reynolds even requesting to 'befriend' her in January 1792".
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this also seems a bit awkward: "Hamilton is thought have being aware of both Reynolds' being involved"
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the first two pargraphs of the "1796 presidential election" section appear unreferenced
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the first paragraph of the "1800 presidential election" seems unreferenced
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • please check the date format, per WP:DATESNO "June 27th 1804" should probably be "June 27, 1804"
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • is there a citation that can be added for this: "Biographer Ron Chernow considers the circumstances to indicate that Burr fired second, after having taken deliberate aim."?
YesY Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the second paragaph of the Legacy section appears unreferenced
YesY LeftAire (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • there appear to be a number of unreferenced sentences or paragraphs in the "Monuments and memorials" section
YesY LeftAire (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the presentation of the works in the Biographies section appears to be inconsistent with those in the Specialized studies section. For instance compare how the year comes towards the end in the Biographies entries, but in the Specialized studies section it is in brackets near the author names
YesY LeftAire (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Phew. I think that I'll nominate it for GA now. Hopefully what else needs to be fixed is minimal. Thanks for the suggestions! LeftAire (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 4 January 2015, 22:45 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Language and literature[edit]

Laurence Olivier[edit]

Previous peer review

Following the promotion of Ralph Richardson's and John Gielgud's articles to FA, this is a joint attempt by SchroCat and Tim riley to get the third of the great theatrical trinity up to gold star standard. We have broadly followed the layout of the earlier two articles (including absence of info-box, which we think adds little here). All comments gratefully received. SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC[) & Tim riley talk 20:25, 14 January 2015

Image review

Changed this to the right link. We hope (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Wuthering Heights Olivier and Oberon 1939.jpg
Listed as unidentified author. We hope (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I know. That's still more author information than our information template has. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
OK-I linked and copied from the source page at the link. See if that helps. We hope (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright, good. We just needed to state explicitly that the author is not known. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll admit that I'm not sure if the US had (or would have had) a different trailer. I'll drop this one and tag on commons - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Now refurred and links are there. We hope (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to you both for identifying and sorting these! From what I can see, we are now all covered on these: please let me know if I've missed any. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we all happy with the main image? The contrast between the green and white in the background and angle stance isn't perfect. File:Lord_Olivier_5_Allan_Warren.jpg might be a better one if cropped slightly with a pure white background. I would have expected a classic photo rather like File:Laurence_Olivier_-_1961_-_Boston.jpg though, although Light show uploaded that one so it's probably dubious! The colour one is probably of higher quality, but I think you know what I mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Doc - missed your comment up here! I quite like the current one - it was something Tim and I discussed with a full gallery of images in front of us. It was something about the eyes on this one that made us plump for it in the end. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from jimknut[edit]

  • Introduction: "He also worked in films throughout much of his career, and played more than fifty cinema roles." — "He also worked in films throughout much of his career, and played in more than fifty motion pictures."
    • "Motion pictures" seems alien to an English reader, I'd say. SchroCat, what think you? Tim riley talk 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree: it's a rather cumbersome term in any language, but certainly BrEng! - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Introduction: "His later films for cinema included" — "His later films included" Jimknut (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This is trying to distinguish between films made for the cinema and films made for television. Perhaps its import would be clear enough without the "cinema", though. Tim riley talk 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (Just for fun) Hmmm, I noticed that the Donald Spoto biography is not included in the reference section. Gee, I wonder why. Jimknut (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Quite so. The term "reliable source" does not leap to mind in this connection. Tim riley talk 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, Coleman (whose approach is solid and professional) is quite scathing on a few bits that Spotty throws in there! - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple of openers from BB[edit]

As mentioned, my main comments will follow later, but here's a couple of initial points as I pack my trunk:

  • Maybe I'm wearing blinkers, but I don't see hatnote links to Olivier's filmography or other lists of roles. Surely these list exist, and should be linked here?
  • Shocking oversight! Now added. It's not the best page we could have, but I'm working on a replacement at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the report on Henry V I read that "John Betjeman played a key liaison role". So Betj was an actor, too? I don't remember seeing this part in the cast list, but I bet the old boy made the most of it.
  • An uncredited role as third spear carrier? Now clarified in the text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

More (serious stuff) when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for these two: enjoy your hols and we look forward to seeing the photos and your comments on your return. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very enjoyable indeed, I've been waiting for this one. Always thought highly of his acting, still do. Now to business.
  • SchroCat and I have agreed that each will deal with comments on the bits he's written. Hence the gaps, for now. You seem to be ahead of us in making some of the suggested changes, I see.
  • "He later confirmed the good impression made by his Brutus," Does this mean Terry saw him in these later parts, or just that he was brilliant in what are difficult roles?
    • The latter. Do you think we should redraw? Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think so. It's a bit ambiguous as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Tim riley talk 17:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "tour de force" thoughts on italics?
    • I had it in italics, but Chris the Speller, whom I asked to run his unwinking editorial eye over our prose, is of opinion that it's in enough Eng dictionaries not to need it. I could be persuaded otherwise. Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I think of this as editorial discretion. Just ensuring you've thought about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the couple's son" simplify to "their son"
  • "it was best to keep Olivier and Leigh separate until their divorces came through" maybe "apart" for "separate"
  • "After the war had begun, Oliver's life was under threat from the Nazis and pro-German sympathisers. " I would delete "After the war had begun", it reads oddly and we know when we are. But may I ask why the dashing Olivier so offended them? Merely from acting in propaganda flicks? Was he too cultured, causing them to reach for their guns?
    • No idea! Unfortunately the sources don't make it too clear either: details relating to the security, but nothing on the reasons behind it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "pranging aircraft" I'm sure the wartime slang is charming, but I suspect most readers will reach for the link. Is "crashing" too much of a bore?
  • "roles to be cast the other way about" roles to be reversed?
  • If you can spare the space, I'd like also to see a more positive review of Olivier's performance in Hamlet. There's room to differ, but in my view it's the finest Shakespeare-based movie ever made. If you can find something short and pithy.
    • "brilliant ... one of the masterpieces of the stage has been made into one of the greatest of films": the Daily Tel critic has come up with a good one, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " had been dismissed" purely a matter of style, but I'd be blunt and say "had been sacked".
    • Well they were, certainly, but in my prim British way I find "sacked" a bit slangy. SchroCat, what say you? Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Both are, of course good. I initially swapped it over, but on reflection I think dismissed is better. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All right.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Olivier was thought by some critics to be under par in both his roles, and some suspected him of playing deliberately below his usual strength so that Leigh might receive more limelight." I think the sheer bulk of figures of speech is a bit over the top.
    • I struggled with the phrasing of this and will ponder how to make it smoother. Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Now done, satisfactorily?
Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Independent actor-manager, (1951–55)" why the comma when you don't use it elsewhere?
  • " Leigh's Lady Macbeth received mixed but generally polite notices,[180][182][183] although to the end of his life Olivier believed it to have been the best Lady Macbeth he ever saw." Helps to be mad going in, I dare say (no action required).
  • "decree nisi" I don't think decree should be italicised (for some reason Ko Ko's little list song keeps going through my head). Possibly a pipe to nisi prius?
  • Well, now I think nisi should be italicised, if only because my autocorrect gave me a heck of a battle before letting me type it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Will do so now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " Jacobi and Anthony Hopkins." given that you have not mentioned Mr. Jacobi in almost thirty years, I suggest that you either relink or give full name. Not that there are too many Jacobis out there of note ...
    • Fair enough. Shall do. Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " Olivier himself stayed firmly in place, and Tynan followed suit." possibly change the last two words to "also remained".
  • " to become a peer for services to the theatre" is it "be created a peer"?
  • "not get the necessary long insurance for larger parts" This could possibly use a bit more information.
    • Added a slice more. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If you feel the star would be copyright free, I'll be in LA before I fly to the UK and would be happy to photograph his star.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That would be splendid. You have freedom of panorama in the US, I think. I have your Feb dates in my diary. Tim riley talk
  • If there's time and sunlight enough, and if there's not someone sitting on it or something, I will do and upload and bring to your attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Can I be slightly cheeky and ask for one of John Barrymore, whose star was put in place in a slightly different location, bu on the same day as LO. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • An address would be helpful for Google Maps purposes. I know that area of LA somewhat, but not perfectly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 6667 Hollywood Blvd is the spot. If it's not possible, or too far away from the Olivier's one, then please don't trouble yourself. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt for those comments. As precise and nippy as one would hope for from someone coming in first wicket down - often the problem place in the England batting order. (En passant, Olivier was once bidden by C Aubrey Smith to play for the Hollywood Cricket Club and had to borrow a a pair of boots from Boris Karloff.) Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks also from me: your thoughts and comments have been helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Excellent article and I shall be glad to contribute both by my comments and by gathering stars.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers[edit]

Thanks for taking on Olivier - obviously the encyclopedia should have an FA on him. I'm working my way through, making copy edits. I always find this referencing system difficult to use, and so I ignore the references, hoping that they are all right; I think that if this type of referencing were used widely, it would surely discourage any newbie from editing Wikipedia, and I am proof that it discourages some experienced users. Having said that, I am finding the article well written. So far, my only serious issue is that Olivier's tenure at the St. James's Theatre is only briefly mentioned. Can you add a sentence or two about what he produced there over his multi-year tenure as manager? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll certainly do so, though given his admission how rotten a manager he was then I don't expect to find many hits. Tim riley talk 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Now done. He really wasn't a great picker! Even the critical successes would have the audiences staying away in droves: I mean, Racine in French, Pirandello in Italian? Tim riley talk 12:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I notice that several of the films for which he was nominated for BAFTA awards (but did not win) are not even mentioned in the article. Those are all my comments. I look forward to seeing this at FAC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Films are SchroCat's department (over to you, partner!) but on the BAFTA point I don't, for my own part, see much merit in mentioning near-misses. Thank you very much for your comments and your work on the main page. We certainly have FAC in mind, and already the comments we've received have helped us get nearer the desired quality. Tim riley talk 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I see several have now been added before I got round to dealing with the substantive points raised in the last day or so. For what it's worth, I think there are too many now listed, especially those done en passant, but I'm not going to delete any of them, even though we have the films all shown on the filmog, and the awards shown on the awards page (and we refer to the awards in the relevant section here). - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

  • The list of his films in the lead feels overboard.
I must disagree with that one Crisco, given the extent of his film career I think it's a conservative amount, the others mentioned are for television. I wouldn't want to see anything cut from his main body of film work, although perhaps some of the TV ones might be trimmed by a few. I agree with the selection of feature films included and can't see a way you could remove any of those, all particularly notable, Carrie (a BAFTA nominated role) is the other one which might be mentioned I suppose.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a filmography, however. It is a biography. We have an article on the films and stage performances Olivier was in, which we can use instead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If you compare his actual filmography with the ones mentioned in the lede it is a very brief insight, one could mention Carrie, Khartoum, Battle of Britain and a number of others but we don't. Perhaps one or two of the TV films might be dropped though. We mention 9 feature films of Olivier's, P.S. Hoffman's mentions 14.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hoffman didn't when I supported it – I really dislike the subsequent re-write. The filmography list is currently being re-written, so don't pay too much heed to the current one. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
He actually had more films mentioned I think during the FAC, we trimmed some afterwards! Loeba and another editor seemed very keen on making the changes to PSH, I wasn't initially, so we compromised.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"really dislike"? Ouch. If you feel so strongly about it, I'm surprised you didn't say something either of the times that I pinged you for input. And Blofeld's right, the lead actually now mentions less titles than it did when you supported. Anyway... --Loeba (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The previous version was well-written, giving a brief mention of the role as well as the film, and you got an impression of the wide range of roles PSH took on. The current version feels like there are more names mentioned because there is a block of blue links, which the eye tends to skim over, rather than take on board properly. I saw the ping, but was in the midst of a number of things IRL and completely forgot to look in later, to be honest, not that I felt like pushing the point one way or the other. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You surely can't see "a block of blue" as such a problem when the Olivier lead, para 3, currently mentions 14 titles in a row without any expansion..! Not trying to start an argument or anything, but you can see how that looks a bit hypocritical. Anyway, let's move on. --Loeba (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is any need to call me a hypocrite, but yes, I think we should move on from this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Watch for overlinking; Sybil Thorndike is overlinked here, and I'm sure there are others
  • There were a couple - now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Esmond was predominantly lesbian; this was socially unacceptable in her lifetime, and was rarely mentioned. - Interesting how her article doesn't actually mention this, and only has LGBT in the categories.
  • Noël also did a priceless thing, he taught me not to giggle on the stage. - Comma in the original?
    • I know what you mean, but a comma it certainly is in the source. Tim riley talk 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Mdash or ndash; standardise
  • I think we're all OK on this point now, unless you have spotted some rogue ones in there...? - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comparing it with his co-star's mastery of the poetry - compare or contrast here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Contrasting is better. Will do. Tim riley talk 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Although Miss Leigh and Mr Olivier are handsome young people they hardly act their parts at all - Any missing punctuation?
  • Oscar nominations for the film, including Best Picture and Best Actor, but it won neither - is "neither" appropriate? Including suggests that there were more than two, but neither only applies to the two.
  • Yep - wil do. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Link any of the characters, like Falstaff?
  • I'll spin through and try and catch these where appropriate - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Olivier directed his third Shakespeare film in September 1954, Richard III, released in 1955, which he co-produced with Korda. - that's a lot of clauses
  • Tweaked a little to remove one - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Olivier was nominated for the Best Actor Academy Award, which Yul Brynner won, but Olivier won a BAFTA award for the role. - feels like BAFTA first would work better.
  • increasing ill health - increasingly ill health, I think; ill is being modified
  • The sections Honours and Awards etc. are rather proseline-y
  • As per Tim's comment below, we'll look at the bottom sections of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We've cited Ayliff several times thusfar; think he's worth an article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure on the last point: I'll have a look. As always Crisco 1492, a very large thanks for your excellent comments. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from the Dr.[edit]

Lead
  • It might be a good thing to try to highlight some more of his really notable stage roles to be more informative to the reader. I know that's difficult to do so without bloating it, but it would look a better overall balance with his film and TV coverage with some examples I think. The problem though is that it's already a sizable paragraph and would probably end up bloating it. Can you try to squeeze a mention of one or two more stage roles into it though?
  • "Among Olivier's films are Wuthering Heights (1939), Rebecca (1940), and a trilogy of Shakespeare films as actor-director: Henry V (1944), Hamlet (1948), and Richard III (1955), His -is a fullstop intended here rather than a comma?
  • Indeed: now added. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Early life
  • "Gerard's father Henry Arnold Olivier was a clergyman, but his other sons all achieved success in secular spheres: " -the "but", comma and colon here I find jarring.
    • I had difficulty drafting this, and will look again at it. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Now redrawn, satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 15:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gerard practised extremely high church, Ritualist Christianity, and liked to be addressed as "Father Olivier". This made him unacceptable to most Anglican congregations,[3] and the only church posts he was offered were temporary, usually deputising for regular incumbents in their absence." Seems a bit superfluous, can it be shortened to a sentence perhaps?
    • I think this is important enough in LO's background to be worth the two sentences. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)illustrat
      • It's the "liked to be addressed as "Father Olivier"" part which seems trivial and unremarkable, although I can see why you might think it a good example of his father's personality. Wouldn't it read better simply as something like "Gerard practised extremely high church, Ritualist Christianity, which was unacceptable to most Anglican congregations. As a result, the church posts he was offered were temporary, usually deputising for regular incumbents in their absence." ? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I could live with that, though as a middle-of-the-road Anglican myself I feel mentioning "Father Olivier" illustrates how frightfully High Church he was - so high you need oxygen, as the saying goes. I can remember my own astonishment and slight alarm in the mid-1960s on meeting an Anglican priest who styled himself "Father". Tim riley talk 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Rising star
  • "both realised they had made a mistake. Olivier later recorded that the marriage was "a pretty crass mistake." -rep of "mistake"
  • They have now erred. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Horne: Can you help me? I've erred? Sandy: We've all 'eard - it's common knowledge, innit, Jule? [Sorry about this]
  • "In 1930 Noël Coward cast Olivier as Victor Prynne in his new play Private Lives, which opened in London in September." -which theatre was this?
    • The Phoenix, but it wasn't a particularly important theatre in LO's career, and not worth singling out, I think. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that it's somebody as prominent as Coward I think mentioning the theatre is useful in that instance. I agree with what you say below about not mentioning it in every instance, but I think for this particular one it seems useful, especially as it seems the role played a part in interest in Hollywood unless I'm mistaken.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Not wholly persuaded, but done anyway. Tim riley talk 15:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1931 RKO Pictures offered Olivier a two-film contract at $1,000 a week" . Seems a big jump here. Was it Coward that got him into Hollywood? Had a film boss seen him on stage somewhere? Something seems to be missing.
  • To quote the source, at the start of the para: "Meanwhile, RKO had spotted Larry and offered him two pictures ..." So no backstory to it I'm afraid! (I'll check the other sources to see if there is anything useful in any of them. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing more by way of how the offer came about, but info about discussing it with Coward, and a decent quote, to boot. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"RKO had spotted Larry and offered him two pictures" -it would seem an RKO exec saw him on stage and noted him, I have read that Hollywood film execs frequently visited London looking for fresh new talent. I had thought that perhaps Larry was keen on breaking into Hollywood and had asked Coward to ask one of his contacts. A pity that there's nothing more on that, never mind! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "a British journalist in a Russia under martial law" -is "a" Russia intentional here?
  • Yes: it could (if you force it slightly) be the journalist who is under ML in Russia, rather than the whole country. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Westward Passage -add (1932) or "in 1932"
  • "Olivier's stage roles in 1934 included Bothwell in Gordon Daviot's Queen of Scots," -where was this?
    • As above, I'm not keen on mentioning all the theatres as a matter of course. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "but fiercely criticised his speaking of Shakespeare's verse, comparing it with his co-star's mastery of the poetry" -contrasting might work better than comparing here given that they were polarised opinions.
    • Entirely agree, and changed half an hour ago at Crisco's similar suggestion, above. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Old Vic
  • "Ivor Brown praised Olivier's "magnetism and muscularity" " -might add something very brief of Brown's background and who he was, was it in a paper he wrote that?
  • "Henry V was the next play. " -seems a bit too short and listy, can you reword into the sentence after it? Also some indication of the month of some of these plays started might help the reader.
  • "begun an affair sometime that year.[75][76] Of the affair," -rep of affair
  • One is now a relationship. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "and evidently had a homosexual fling" -why evidently? Seems like you're trying to hide something here!
    • Well, the letters, which have not been published are said to strongly suggest an affair, but there is no conclusive evidence. "Evidently" is as firm as we are entitled to go, I think. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Would a footnote mentioning the letter and no conclusive evidence be unreasonable do you think? It's the "evidently" part which raises my interest and wanted to know why!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Indeed, and we already have one. Tim riley talk 15:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Agree: the sources couch it in careul terms, never saying that "this is what happened", but are slightly more careful in what theysay. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Elsingor" -the correct formal name is Helsingør I believe if you're referring to Denmark and "the castle" you're referring to from what I gather is Kronborg Castle?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Perfectly true, but I suspect it would nonplus most readers familiar with the play. Sticking to Shakespeare's "Elsinore" seems safest, but I could be persuaded otherwise. SchroCat, what think you? Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree: lets keep the common names that won't trip people up - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it should be linked correctly at least and the castle probably linked too, Danish or English spelling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Tim riley talk 15:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "After Olivier and Leigh took a tour of Europe in the summer of 1937 they returned to separate film projects—A Yank at Oxford for her and The Divorce of Lady X for him—although they moved into a property together." -"—although " grates on me here, I don't think it belongs in the same sentence. Something about the property, at least location, might help the reader.
  • Swapped for "and", and added location. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we have a negative quote for 1938's Othello for neutrality purposes?
    • Don't follow you. There isn't a positive quote to be balanced. The production fell a bit flat, and we've said so. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hollywood
  • "In late 1938 he travelled to Hollywood" -what changed his mind, the bait of $50,000? You might mention "lured" or something if so because you previously indicate he hated Hollywood and was highly disillusioned with it. Something like "In late 1938, lured by a salary of $50,000, he travelled to Hollywood "
Yep, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rebecca really is a landmark film worthy of some background info on his character/plot and a bit more on production I think.
  • "The war in Europe had been under way for a year and was going badly for Britain. After his wedding Olivier wanted to help the war effort. He called Duff Cooper, the Minister of Information under Winston Churchill, hoping to get a position in Cooper's department. " -reads a little too much like a narrative.
  • BFI -did you earlier put this in brackets after British Film Institute for our lesser informed readers?
  • Should the Royal Air Force be linked or does it fall under the broader ones advised against at MOS?
  • I thinks it's a well known enough, but I could be persuaded otherwise if you disagree... - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "He intended to join the Royal Air Force, but instead he made " -"he" is repeated here, intentional? "but decided instead to make another propaganda film, 49th Parallel" I think might read a bit better
  • "took a cottage" -settled in a?
  • "who helps build British-Russian relationships" -you make it sound as if he actually built it from brick or something as you state he was an engineer hehe, "helps improve Anglo-Soviet relations" or something like that perhaps?
Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps move the short "The film was released in November 1944. " to the end of the first sentence as "eventually released in November 1944". If you'd rather not for chronological reasons though, no worries.
  • I'd rather keep it where it is, as it s pertinent to the following sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes probably better in that order actually, although a bit short.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Should Henry V really be split into separate paragraphs? I almost didn't see the content underneath! Is it really essential to mention the music? Seems more like the interest of the writer rather than what the general reader might expect.
    • I suspect SchroCat may have mentioned Walton to please me, who wrote his FA. Though it is true that LO (and WW!) felt that without this score the film would have been a failure. SchroCat, if you agree with the Doc I shall not repine. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not against it as such, but I'm not sure it is really essential. In places a bit of background info though I think improves the readability, so your choice!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Co-directing
  • "but the former declined, saying, "It would be a disaster, you would have to spend your whole time as referee between Larry and me."" -seems to contradict what you said earlier about the relationship only being prickly on Larry's side. That seems to indicate otherwise.
    • There wasn't a prickly bone in Gielgud's body, but he recognised the difficulty of working with Olivier, as was amply confirmed at Stratford later. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Does Lord Esher have an article or a fuller name? If he's missing I'll start it later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a pity. I rather like the red link here and in Ralph Richardson's article to show what a nonentity the little twerp was. He has no ODNB or Who Was Who article, which speaks volumes. I don't think he merits a Wikipedia article except perhaps as Upper Class Twit of the Year. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If he's not worth an article then why is he red linked?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note, the third Viscount Esher (who I gather is the Lord Esher in the article) does have an entry in Who Was Who (see "Esher, 3rd Viscount", Who Was Who, A & C Black, etc., 2014, online ed., April 2014).
Well, well! Don't know how I missed that, and thank you, Noswall, for that touch on the tiller. Tim riley talk 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
His father, grandfather and son all have articles, and you can bet your boots that someone who sleeps with Debrett under his pillow will write one before long. Tim riley talk 15:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Add (1948) after Hamlet.
  • De-link Ceylon/Sri Lanka
  • Sure? I think there will be a fair few people who don't equate Ceylon with the SL. Hapy to swap out if you still disagree - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps place Sri Lanka in brackets instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As LO didn't bother to refer to it in his autobiography, I didn't see much point in it either (especially for an award he didn't win, but I see Ssilvers has dropped in something. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
LO didn't think much of his films in general though did he given what Tim said? He'd have probably scoffed at Carrie. It's still a notable film and role though, William Wyler was one of the greatest directors of all time. Just a brief mention is worth it I think as is now in place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be fine, except that he mentions other films (including a couple of less noticable ones for which he didn't lose an award!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, which ones specifically? Admittedly I'm very director oriented, it's very difficult for me to ignore a film by the director of masterpieces like Roman Holiday, The Letter, Ben Hur, Dodsworth, Mrs. Miniver, The Children's Hour etc! He had worked with Wyler earlier in Wuthering Heights though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In January 1953 Leigh travelled to Ceylon to film Elephant Walk with Peter Finch. Shortly after filming started she suffered a breakdown, and returned to Britain where, between periods of incoherence, she told Olivier that she was in love with Finch, and had been having an affair with him.[168] she gradually recovered over a period of several months. As a result of the breakdown, many of the Oliviers' friends learned of her problems. Niven said she had been "quite, quite mad",[169] and in his diary, Coward expressed the view that "things had been bad and getting worse since 1948 or thereabouts."[170]" -whose biography is this? Perhaps find a way to trim it, even if largely relevant, I know Leigh's outbursts and behaviour were important in his life.
  • I think I'd rather leave this as it is, unless others say otherwise. Yes, it refers to Leigh, but they were married, and Olivier had to deal with the consequences. The breakdown(s) and infidelity both led to the divorce court eventually, so I think we need to cover it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If you look at the previous version of the article, Doc, you will see how much stuff about VL rather than LO we have stripped out. I think we have the balance about right in our redraft. Tim riley talk 15:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "For the Coronation season of 1953, Olivier and Leigh starred in the West End in Terence Rattigan's Ruritanian comedy, The Sleeping Prince. " -what theatre?
  • Elephant Walk and Richard III should have the year of release in brackets I think to avoid confusion of year of filming and release.
  • I have with Richard, but nt with Elephant: the film (and release) are the less important bits, as Leigh wasn't in the final version, so the key point is the 1953 date of her breakdown. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Instead of appearing with Leigh, he cast Marilyn Monroe as the showgirl. Although the filming was challenging because of Monroe's behaviour," -that's where I'd love to read a bit of his conflict with Monroe which I find interesting, I know it's been well-documented, although I think it was I who added some of the details in the film article a while back. Perhaps a sentence or two on production and some anecdotes briefly here would improve the pleasure of reading if you know what I mean.
  • I think that would mean that we would just have a list of examples of problematic behaviour by Monroe, rather than anything that helps us understand Olivier? There are some of the details on the film's article, should anyone wish to see. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but I was thinking of something basic like "Instead of appearing with Leigh, he cast Marilyn Monroe as the showgirl. Production was marred with difficulties due to the behaviour of Monroe, and at one point, Olivier ordered her acting coach off the set, leading to Monroe's refusal to continue." Other than that you could add a footnote after "challenging" and add a basic summary of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Royal court
  • "he production was chiefly remarkable for the star's quarrels with the director, Orson Welles, who according to the biographer Francis Beckett suffered the "appalling treatment" that Olivier had inflicted on Gielgud at Stratford five years earlier.[201]" -again here something brief about the nature of the conflict I'd find most interesting and informative.
  • No mention of working with Stanley Kubrick? How dare you :-)
  • OK - now added a quick reference! - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't his son an actor or something? No article?
  • I think he was in a handful of things as a child in the 1940s, but not much else. He refers to himsel as a producer, I think, but I'm not sure what he's actually done! - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
National Theatre
  • "In 1966 his one play as director was Juno and the Paycock." -perhaps mention some of the actors he directed.
    • It was cast from the regular company with no outside stars, as the majority of his NT presentations were. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you should elaborate a bit on the role in Khartoum and mention something about his costume/makeup and character and perhaps a review. It was a role quite different from many I think. He must have spent hours in makeup every day to resemble an Arab, is there something brief on that perhaps?
  • Not that different in many ways to Othello...? - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed: there were then and later some snide comments to the effect that LO had just recycled his Moor, though I think that's not actually correct, as he played Othello as a black sub-Saharan African rather than as an Arabic type. Still, one sees what they meant. Tim riley talk 15:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
1968-74
  • Sleuth I really think could use something to make the reader understand more about the actual confrontation in the film between Olivier and Caine and the nature of the plot and his role. I've seen a lot of films and that one still stands out among most for its battle of wits and quirkiness, something anyway which helps the reader to really grasp that in few words would help.
  • But we're not trying to make them understand the film: that's for the film article. We're trying to understand Olivier and his life, which I think we cover. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
We're trying to help the reader understand his acting and the nature of his roles too. Can you just mention something like, "which pitted him against Michael Caine in a battle of wits" or something, that would be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Later years
  • "he made a series of advertisements for Polaroid cameras" -what period exactly was this?
  • Add (1976) after Marathon Man?
  • "n 1975 he won another Emmy for Love Among the Ruins.[205] The following year he appeared in adaptations of Tennessee Williams's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Harold Pinter's The Collection.[257][258] In 1978 he appeared in the film, "- reads a bit too much like a list here.
  • Nazi hunter linked but no earlier link with Nazi before torturer?
  • Rather like the RAF, I think Nazi is well known enough not to be (happy to be overruled by consensus tho), but not necessari;y Nazi hunter, which is less known. -SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing more to be said about his death and funeral?
Honours
  • This section seems a bit scruffy looking, not keen on the sub headers and the award sub headers and main article link jutting out from the image. I usually feel more comfortable reading about awards last, but I can see that you've got some fitting quotes to end with reputation.
    • Let's see if others share your reservations and we'll change if they do. It looks OK to me, but I'll go with the consensus, natch. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • That's what I was going at with my comment above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Reputation
  • Rather than reading as a tribute to his greatness here, I think if you could balance it out with some scholarly analysis of his actual acting style and way of delivery and reword it as "Acting style and reception" it would read a lot better. Especially for somebody like Olivier you'd expect some real understanding displayed of his mannerisms and range of work, much like in the Hoffman article. I usually find a lot of quotes using Template:Quote as a bit unsightly to read, in fact it rather reminds me of Light show's preference for writing hehe :-). I think there is a way to reword the section so it looks like regular prose with keeping in the quotes and balancing it out with acting style coverage.
    • I strongly disagree: the point about "Reputation" is that it says what people thought of him, and using their own words is best for this. We could have a separate section on "Acting technique" but (i) we haven't got one in the FA Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud articles, and (ii) it would be entirely beyond my (or I suspect anyone's) competence to analyse LO's technique. The format for this section follows our pattern for the earlier FAs. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You strongly disagree that covering his acting technique isn't appropriate too? It's not essential, but neither is reputation I guess. I think some scholarly commentary on his acting work can only help it, just a suggestion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It would absolutely be appropriate, but, as I say, impossible, in my view. One could mention that he liked to work from the outside in - finding an appearance, a walk, a face, a voice, and then finding the character to inhabit them, but so do many other actors and I don't think that begins to show why he was the great actor he was. He got very ratty when accused of being all technique and no soul, and was right to be ratty, I think. I understand your suggestion, but I just don't think we can deliver on it. Tim riley talk 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There's some fine sources out there like this which could further improve the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
We must agree to differ about this. That article doesn't seem to me to explain LO's unique qualities any more than any other source I have seen. We got Sir Ralph and Sir John to FA without a vain effort to analyse how they worked their magic, and Sir Laurence, me judice, should also be let off the impossible attempt. Tim riley talk 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall excellent job. My only criticism is that I think that some of his notable film roles are often dismissed in a sentence and I'd like to see a bit more depth and understanding displayed of what these roles were and something to improve the actual understanding of the films and his film career. I get the impression reading it that there is no love for his film work, and while primarily a stage actor, I do think it can be elaborated on in parts to provide a better overall balance. Hope my comments help!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Some really excellent points there, Doctor, thank you. On your last point, Olivier rather despised the cinema, but it subsidised his not especially well paid stage work. We mention a much higher percentage of his film roles than we do of his stage roles: we have to be sternly selective, but I am now poaching SchroCat's shots and will shut up forthwith. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that has to be taken into account, but for some of the roles I still believe I have a point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Doc, A few points left to mull over, but all good grist to the mill. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Loeba comments[edit]

Hi guys, I noticed this on Blofeld's contributions yesterday and couldn't resist commenting :) I'm so glad you've taken this article on, and it looks like you've done an excellent job on the biographical stuff. But I immediately noticed that the "Reputation" section feels pretty rushed and insubstantial. For someone as major as Olivier, I'd definitely expect more. I mean, his name and status in the acting world is basically the same as, say, Beethoven or Bach in the music world. If one of their articles turned up at FAC without a decent discussion of their style and legacy, it would be challenged as lacking comprehensiveness. It's becoming standard/expected for actor articles - especially important actors - to have such sections. Indeed, Schrocat, you've written a ton of actor FAs and looking at them, they all seem to have good analytical sections: Peter_Sellers#Technique and Peter_Sellers#Legacy, John_Le_Mesurier#Approach_to_acting, Terry-Thomas#Screen_persona_and_technique and Terry-Thomas#Legacy_and_reputation, Hattie_Jacques#Reputation, George_Formby#Screen_persona_and_technique and George_Formby#Legacy, George_Formby Snr#Screen_persona_and_technique and George_Formby Snr#Legacy, John_Barrymore#Legacy. Tim - your Ralph Richarsdon article (Ralph_Richardson#Character_and_reputation) has more depth in this area than Olivier's currently does, and he's not such a big name. So Olivier should absolutely have more, along the lines of the above examples (I especially think Terry-Thomas's sections look good). They are usually the most interesting part of an article, and the bit that casual browsers are most likely to read, I think...so it would be a shame if Olivier's article was lacking. Hope you don't mind my butting in, but I couldn't ignore the compulsion to comment about this. Cheers! --Loeba (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, let us ponder this. I'm travelling all day tomorrow, but let us confer a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I think it germane to point out that there are mixed messages here though, referring to a "technique" section (extremely difficult and limited with LO), and a larger reputation section, which are what most of the links above are. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
SchroCat, I'm away from home and bookshelves till Sunday, but have jotted down some initial thoughts on the talk page of this review. You may like to consider. If have been too cryptic anywhere don't hesitate to award a yellow card. Tim riley talk 21:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Now added a few hundred words on technique. Tim riley talk 12:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "He also worked in films throughout much of his career, and played more than fifty cinema roles." This initially confused me as "and" implies two different things. How about "career, playing more"?
  • Yep - tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "His concern to speak naturally and avoid what he called "singing" Shakespeare's verse was the cause of much frustration in his early career, with critics regularly decrying his delivery." This reads a bit awkwardly. Maybe commas after "naturally" and "verse".
  • "Esmond was predominantly lesbian; this was socially unacceptable in her lifetime, and was rarely mentioned." Interesting that the version in Esmond's own article is different, citing a letter to their son saying she loved him into old age.
  • "and evidently had a homosexual fling with the actor Henry Ainley." "evidently" is a weasel word - I would delete it.
  • Deliberately chosen, but only because the sources pull their punches on this as well, none of them stating it as a fact, but more as a "quite likely" scenario - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "an invitation from the Danish authorities" What does "Danish authorities" mean? Government? Owners of Elsinore?
  • "Olivier and Leigh told their respective spouses about the affair, ending their marriages" According to the Esmond article she already knew and only agreed to a divorce when Olivier asked for one.
  • I'm not sure there is a problem here: L&O told their spouses before it became known to the newspapers (I seem to remember from the sources). I'll dig out the books and clarify the situation. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the Esmond article "Esmond withstood the publicity of Olivier's affair with Vivien Leigh and did not seek a divorce." This puts a different slant on it - if that article has got it right of course. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although the director, William Wyler, was a hard taskmaster, Olivier learned to remove "the carapace of theatricality" to which he was prone," "Although" seems a non-sequitur. Also I had the impression you were saying that he was criticised for not being theatrical enough.
  • "Richardson had gained a reputation for crashing aircraft, which Olivier rapidly eclipsed." Olivier had a reputation for crashing aircraft? It sounds drastic. Is anything more known about this?
  • "A Streetcar Named Desire, with Leigh in the central role of Blanche DuBois. The play was condemned by most critics," The play or the production?
  • Indeed now tweaked -SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "he played the earlier scenes like a Jewish hairdresser, with a lisp and an extraordinary accent" No change needed, but it is remarkable that such an anti-Semitic remark was considered acceptable as late as 1979.
  • I think the article says that he was a pacifist, but later wanted to join the RAF. I think this - I assume - change in views should be covered.
  • Another fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Dudley, some great comments for us to work on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • And thanks from me, too. All very much ad rem. Tim riley talk 23:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Also is often redundant. Graham Beards (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, I've weeded a couple out and will go through again - I think this is probably more in my parts of the text than Tims. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 January 2015, 20:25 UTC)----


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

Marrecs de Salt[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be a featured article. I have translated most if it from the its catalan counterpart, which has been partially written by me. I am not a native english speaker, so apart from any other suggestion to improve the article, I need you to help me fix some expressions that may sound weird on my text. These are the highlights of the page:

  • It replicates the catalan article
  • Some small bits have been reformatted to be more visually appealing
  • A table with all towers per season has been added
  • The Scroll gallery (which looks great in cawiki) has been replaced for the standard gallery, as Scroll gallery does not work in enwiki.
  • ONGOING: Spell and writting style check. I DO need your help here. You may want to use this handy glossary of technical terms
  • ONGOING: Removing red links by delinking them or creating stubs from cawiki
  • ONGOING: Replacing spanish and catalan references by sources in english
  • DISCLAIMER: I am a member of the group

Thanks, JordiGran (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 January 2015, 10:16 UTC)----


Semper Fi Fund[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because: I would like to see more well-run charitable organizations with Wikipedia articles. Social Science and society was not a perfect fit, but it was the closest of the choices given.

Thanks, Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: I think your references should be books or articles from newspapers. Your current references are their website and two directories. It doesn't show if it has received external coverage from independent media and if it is anyway relevant enough to be in the wikipedia. Hope this helps. --JordiGran (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 January 2015, 23:22 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

List of Stanford University people[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FL status and to upgrade the article accordingly. It have a good amount of cites and a good layout and I think about the lead section. I am running the peer review so as to get a proper guidance in order to bring the list to a featured status.

Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 08:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 26 January 2015, 08:04 UTC)----


List of executions at Fremantle Prison[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to Featured List status, to be part of a Good/Featured Topic. Comments with regards to the featured list criteria would be appreciated. Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lets take a look then shall we?
  1. Done. The background information provided with the list is written up very professionally and it adheres to the guidelines to be considered for Featured list status. It features a few too many quotes though and it's history section seems too big to have the article classified as a list. I believe it's more suited to an article titled Executions at Fremantle Prison or something like that.
  2. Done. The list features a very comprehensive lead section, which defined the scope and the inclusion criteria (Which I added in) fairly well.
  3. Not Done. Although content does comply with 3a, 3b states it meets the requirement for a Stand-alone list, and the history section is too big. Perhaps just a really small paragraph and link the main article to Fremantle Prison?
  4. Done. Contains section headings, is very easy to navigate due to it's small size and all content is under the appropriate section heading.
  5. Not Done. The inline quotes give the list no visual appeal at all, otherwise no articles are redlinked and you have a succinct caption for your image.
  6. Done. I don't see any edit wars, not changing significantly now (except in response to the process of list this as FL-class)

All up, a little bit of trimming and you can start processing this list for FL Class. Good Luck, Aneditor (talk tome) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 19 January 2015, 01:30 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]