Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to: navigation, search
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]

Everyday life[edit]

The Boat Race 1993[edit]

Following in the wake of the success of The Boat Race 2012, this one is next in my pipeline for FAC. A successful GA, this has some interesting facets to it and I'd like some other non-involved eyes to give it a look over.

Thanks in advance for your time and efforts, The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 August 2014, 09:38 UTC)----


Nea Salamis Famagusta[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to take it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Thanks, Xaris333 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 August 2014, 03:19 UTC)----


Sonic X[edit]

Previous peer review

My FAC is still waiting so I may as well get any comments I can in the meantime; it had one previous peer review that closed from inactivity. Truly, anything helps. Thanks in advance. This isn't a topic that'd normally be taken too seriously (though I contend it should be; it has some seriously dark and touching episodes and, while not exactly brilliant in this way, more satire of the U.S. than you'd expect from a kids' anime), but I really want to get it to FA.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 August 2014, 02:15 UTC)----


Didier Drogba[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review at the suggestion of Oldelpaso, after I nominated it as a featured article candidate (see the discussion here). Apparently there's a few issues in some parts of the article, including the lead which is too long according to the peer review tool, and I'd like some help to take it up to FA-class. Thanks. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 16:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A few quick comments - I was asked to stop by and say a few words...

  • Avoid using the same item to link to different things, e.g. you have Ligue 1 blue-linked twice in a paragraph, but leading to different targets, very confusing.
  • Avoid overlinking in general, e.g. you have Chelsea linked in the opening para of the lead and third para of the lead.
  • " He made his last appearance for Chelsea..." is this still relevant since he's re-"signed?
  • "Drogba's personal life was also becoming more serious" I get it but it reads oddly to me.
  • "making 21 appearances and scoring five times" vs "eleven appearances and score three goals" inconsistent approach to MOSNUM here.
  • "outfit" sounds very tabloid newspaper to me.
  • "at OM is also " OM?
  • "Drogba remains a club legend in Marseille, despite playing only one season for the club." no reference, looks like OR to me.
  • "10 in the Premier League, five in the Champions League and one in " more MOSNUM issues.
  • Beginning of 2006–07 section is bereft of references.
  • " giving superb performances in all." no ref, looks like OR.
  • Second para of 2007–08 section is unreferenced.
  • Check image captions, if they aren't complete sentences they shouldn't have full stops.
  • "joining Chinese Super League side Shanghai Shenhua, also joining ...." repetitive.
  • " a 1 and a half-year " do you mean "one-and-a-half-year"?
  • You linked £ but I didn't see if you linked the Euro.
  • "Mohamed Salah, who wore the number during the 2013–14 season, took over the number 17 shirt vacated by Eden Hazard." no ref.
  • Lots of the begninning of "international career" section unreferenced.
  • Honours section unreferenced.
  • Works in references (e.g. LA Times) should be in italics.
  • Avoid tabloids, they're not considered RS mostly (e.g. Daily Mirror, The Sun etc)
  • Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
  • Fix dead links.
  • Be consistent with scoreline formats in refs.
  • BBC or BBC Sport? Be consistent.
  • Make sure refs are filled out correctly, e.g. refs 126 and 127 have no information.

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed all the issues you've pointed out here, except for the point on the Honours section. The manual of style for players on WP:FOOTY doesn't contain references in its Honours section, and they wouldn't be necessary since often they'd already have been mentioned in the body or the respective articles of these tournaments would show that the player's teams did win these honours at the time the player was a part of these teams. I think refs would only be necessary if the honour doesn't have an article of its own or if it hasn't been mentioned in the article yet.
Aside from all that, I also included a "Style of play" section at Oldelpaso's suggestion in the initial FAC nomination, and it would be helpful if you looked at the article again and told me whether or not it's ready for another FAC nomination. Thanks, Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem with relying on sourcing in linked articles is that you can't guarantee that what you believe is sourced is actually sourced. Even if it is sourced in the target article, it may not continue to be sourced. It'd be best if you sourced all claims in this article without relying on other articles whose quality is currently uncertain and certainly unknown in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: That's a good point, although I think it's more relevant to individual honours. Looking at other articles of footballers like Cristiano Ronaldo, or Thierry Henry (a former featured article) I can see (some of) those are referenced. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 13:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I suspect finding individual inline references for his honours would take about as long as trying to argue a counterposition whereby other articles do it a different way or it's ok, it'll be referenced in the target article etc. Drogba is modern enough a player to have all his sources online, the honours are all just a Google away. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Yeah I'll be working on that as soon as I can. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 16:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @The Rambling Man: I've referenced all his individual honours and records, except for the Chelsea Players' Player of the Year award for 2007. Couldn't find a source for that one. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 17:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Oldelpaso, The Rambling Man: I think all the issues with the article are sorted now. Is it ready for another FAC? Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 14:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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


FIFA World Cup top goalscorers[edit]

I've worked on this list quite a bit and I think it is complete. I would appreciate any feedback about its contents, and what would miss to be a FL.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through.

  • The first sentence starts "Over 20 goals were scored": shouldn't this be "have been scored"? Also, I'd suggest "penalties converted during shootouts" rather than "converted penalties during shootouts".
  • Just Fontaine holds the record for goals scored in a single finals tournament. I think you should state that somewhere. It's apparent that that's the case from the data, but it is such a remarkable feat that I think it deserves to be specifically mentioned.
  • As far as I can tell, the timeline section sorts the players by the actual time in the game that each goal was scored, which is a nice touch. I think this should be mentioned, perhaps in the text above the table, as it's not clear to the reader otherwise.
  • "Since the first goal of the tournaments was scored by French player Lucien Laurent at the 1930 FIFA World Cup, over 1200 players have scored goals at the final tournaments": this is "tournaments" three times and "final tournaments" twice in the first two sentences. How about "Since the first goal, scored by French player Lucien Laurent at the 1930 World Cup, over 1,200 players have scored goals at these tournaments." I'd also suggest changing "at the initial tournament" to "in 1930" in the following sentence.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and suggestions. For #3 I am not sure how to fix that. The caption already says "Progressive list of". Nergaal (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The fixes look good; I copyedited a little. For #3, how about adding a sentence to [nb 5]: "The order in which these players are listed reflects the actual elapsed time in the games when their goals were scored", or something along those lines? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, tx! Nergaal (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 August 2014, 12:10 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

Personal (company)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it as an intern of the company and would like to disclose the conflict of interest and have other editors review the article to check for significant sources and notability as well as complete neutrality.

Thanks, Ejsmiley (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 14:03 UTC)----


General[edit]

The Who[edit]

Previous peer review

This article passed GA about a year ago, receiving a million award in the process. Such an important and high-traffic band article really should be at featured article status, so this is the first step. Since the GA review, I've added a section on "Musical style", kept the narrative up to date to include their 2014 tour, and done some general copyediting, but hopefully with as many eyes on this as possible, we can make this a truly great article.

Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 15:52 UTC)----


Gary Donnelly (Irish republican)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because that's what you do

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 August 2014, 19:54 UTC)----


Halo Business Intelligence[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have received a wiki alert that says "promotional tone" used. I didn't mean to make this page seem promotional and I believe a third-party opinion will be able to point me in the right direction. Perhaps tell me what I should delete content or what I can add to fix the issue.

Thanks, Mitchboylan (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 18 August 2014, 18:02 UTC)----


New Sunderland Square[edit]


I've listed this article for Peer Review as I've had a good shot at writing it, structuring it and including citations. In order to progress the article further to "Good Article" status, expert advice, external reviews, cooperation and assistance are all required. I would be grateful for any help I can receive in improving this page.

Thanks, TF92 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 9 August 2014, 18:22 UTC)----


Jack White[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I worked on it years ago, and have returned because I would love for this to be a good, or even featured, article. I have steadily been working on it for the last week or so, and I would like a second set of eyes to see where the more glaring areas in need of improvedment are.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 8 August 2014, 14:46 UTC)----


Endgame (Megadeth album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get suggestions on how to upgrade this article to Featured article-level quality. I don't believe that any one section needs more attention than any other, so opinions on everything are welcome.

Thanks, L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Review by Retrohead[edit]

  • link Roadrunner Records in the lead (Yes check.svg Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
  • first album featuring guitarist Chris Broderick→to feature (Yes check.svg Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
  • unlink insanity; I think it's a common word, like torture and crime (Yes check.svg Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
  • there is inconsistency with Ellefson's name; it's Dave in the lead and David in the 'Singles' (Yes check.svg Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
  • 52nd Annual Grammy Awards→2010 Grammy Awards (for better time orientation); piped link would be the best solution (Yes check.svg Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
  • since one of the FA criteria is that the topic is fully-researched, I think the 'Writing and recording' could use some expansion
  • can you reshuffle the 'Songs' section, so that the description would read as the track listing goes? (Yes check.svg Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
  • I'll be back with additional notes; may also invite an outside contributor.--Retrohead (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • here's some help with sources over expanding the writing & recording section: Metal Insider, Guitar World, Ultimate Guitar, About.com, Rolling Stone, Blabbermouth.net

Review by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • It's not generally a good idea to set image sizes unless you have a really good reason---it'll appear differently on different screens, anyways, and setting the size overrides individual user settings to make them bigger or smaller. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This wasn't my doing (I'm not that good with images), but I removed it. Added it back for the pic of Andy Sneap though because otherwise, his pic took up too much space.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I know it's what's normally done on rock album articles, but it always bugs me how technical information (such as the producer, lineup changes, etc) precede the content of the album. I'm not saying you should or must change it, just something to think about.
With all due respect, I'm going to keep that as is, at least for now. Generally, at least in my view, that kind of stuff plays into the background, which seems like it should come before content. Still something to think about though and I appreciate your input.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You should avoid using megadeth.com as a source except for very strictly factual information. Press releases, etc. should be avoided. I'd drop the "the title was announced" bit entirely. Ditto roadrunnerrecords.com.
I agree. Gonna take a closer look at that.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • with lyrics inspired by subjects ranging from: this sounds like each of these tracks have each of these themes.
  • The album was produced by Andy Sneap, who also produced Megadeth's previous album, United Abominations.: Short one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon. Either mergewith the following paragraph or find some other logical place to stick it.
Thought about that issue before. Merged it with next paragraph. Just realized how underwhelming that section is though... I got some work to do there.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On May 27, 2009, Dave Mustaine: we shouldn't assume that everyone knows who Mustaine is. Maybe "group leader"? "the band's singer and rhythm guitarist"?
Thanks for catching that, I'll fix that one right up.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dave Mustaine confirmed twelve songs were complete and they were currently: the antecedent of "they" could only be the "twelve songs"; obviously the songs aren't mixing and mastering the record.
Done.--Retrohead (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • mixing and mastering the record: you mix to make a master, don't you? I'd drop "and mastering", as it's implied.
  • Dave Mustaine had said about the album:: I wasn't sure if I should change this or not---you use the "had+p.p." construction a lot where it's incorrect (it implies and action that had taken place before another past-tense action, as in "I met Mike yesterday, after he had taken the test."). I don't see any reason for using this construction here. Also, it's a short one-sentence paragraph. Is there more that could be added to it, to do with the writing, style, etc? Or maybe put this in the "Songs" section (perhaps rename the section so it's more like a general overview of the music?)
  • As of May 19: was it finished May 19, or some unknown amount of time before?
  • The release date for Endgame was announced on the Megadeth official website as September 15, 2009: was that the actual release date, or only the announced release date?
  • Mustaine announced on TheLiveLine: what's TheLiveLine?
  • it was stated there was new music playing in the background of the message: who stated this?
  • can be heard near the end of the film: what film? TheLiveLine?
  • You have the exact end date of the tour. Can you find the first date?
  • Did the band play in Las Vegas or Las Vegas Valley?
As dumb as it may sound, I did not realize that there was any other meaning other than the city. Looking into the source though (band site and a dead link at that) I'm gonna need to re-research the touring for this album. Been a long time since I did GA on this, so I have no idea if this was there then or not.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Probably was added after GA process--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Was American Carnage in 2010?
As per above, touring will need to be re-researched--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Quote from the cited source. Just removed the quote--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • about nitro fuel funny cars: can this be reworded so the links don't bump into each other? They appear to be a single link.
I'll just remove "Nitro Fuel"--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • is a two-piece song: is it two songs on one track, or a two-part song?
Kind of both, actually, but "two-part" would probably work better.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Head Crusher", describes a medieval torture device: this is an WP:EGG---it appears the link will go to a page about mediaeval torture devices. Maybe "the medieval torture device of the same name"?
Tweaked it somewhat. I tend to use piped links alot in my writing style.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • was about "warrior creed: "a" or "the" warrior creed?
Original source did not specify an article. Just removed the entire quote.
  • potential depression years of 2000 [sic]": is [sic] in the source, or did you add it?
I added that the other day, so someone didn't think that there was a typo within the quote. Should it be outside the quote?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and received a music video directed by: received a music video?
  • roughly based on the story of Shawn Nelson: could we get a brief description so we don't need to click through?
Rewrote several sentences and gave summary of Nelson's story--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • with David Ellefson since his return to the band: when did he return?
I believe I remedied that when I was reworking something else--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Rust in Peace anniversary tour: was the tour called Rust in Peace? If is was, then not italics. Either way, I'd change it to something like "the band's anniversay tour for Rust in Peace".
Done.--Retrohead (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought I heard somewhere that {{Album ratings}} was to be avoided these days.
  • A lot of the quotes could be paraphrased succinctly, and would read better if you did. The quotes are really much more extensive than they should be.
  • Musician Slash gave a favorable review: "musician"? How about "rock guitarist" or something that gives the less-informed reader an idea of who he is?
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No negative or neutral criticism of the album?
  • You could add a {{Portal}} or {{Portal bar}}

That's all I gots. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 August 2014, 16:00 UTC)----


Moment of Impact (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because why not

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 August 2014, 15:19 UTC)----


Stimming[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wan't some opinion on it, don't know if its complete already or not, the sources in it are highly reliable, it is a short article but I think it covers the important elements of the subject.

Thanks, - Phill24th (talk). 13:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The article in its current form is fine, and contains no significant errors that I could see, it just is not comprehensive on the topic. It would need considerable expansion to be ready for a good article review. I would expand the information, such as studies done on stimming, the social impacts of stimming, techniques used to curb stimming, austic stimming versus stimming in neurotypical individuals (hair twirling, nail biting), representation of stimming in the popular media, etc... Godspeed.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 15:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 August 2014, 13:22 UTC)----


Andrew Sega[edit]

I want this article to reach a GA class. Any help on how to do this would be appreciated.

Thanks, Λeternus (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 August 2014, 10:14 UTC)----


Taliesin (studio)[edit]

I am looking for some feedback on Taliesin, the longtime home and studio of American architect Frank Lloyd Wright. I hope to take it to GAC and perhaps even FAC in the future, but its been a loooong time (six years) since I have been through either process. This is also an entirely different topic than what I am used to working on. I am interested in content additions that could push this article over the top.

Cheers, Teemu08 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 6 August 2014, 17:22 UTC)----


Ghost in the Shell (video game)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i wanted to know if it meets any of the requirements of FA status. I noticed the article is made up of high-quality sources, but i know there are other issues to consider. Let me know what needs to be done to become FA.

Thanks, Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 4 August 2014, 22:00 UTC)----


Taiko[edit]

I'm seeking to bring this article to Featured Article status. I believe it is on its way there, but need some additional feedback on the writing style, whether it is comprehensive, the current referencing system, and the "additional sources" section on whether it is appropriate to keep it (it had been there since I started working on the article). Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 4 August 2014, 02:15 UTC)----


Deus Ex[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because me and some other editors are gonna be taking this article to FA soon. So any feedback is gonna help!

Thanks, URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've had a quick look. Condensing the development section is the most obvious point, as stated by the message at the top of that section. I would also try to find references for the pieces in the Music section that have the "citation needed" message in front of them. If you can't I think it's best to delete them. Also, you might try adding references for some points in the Release section. Several sentences do not have a citation to back up their claims (not the Mods section though: that's beautifully references). I haven't looked at grammar yet, but I might well do when I have the time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! ProtoDrake URDNEXT (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

PR buddies! Alright, here are my thoughts:

  • I strongly bolster ProtoDrake's points about citations. There are lots of unreferenced statements, sometimes whole paragraphs, and honestly I'm surprised the page passed GAN with all of those. If you can't find citations, they have to go. I require all statements to have sources, with very few exceptions (plot sections being one of those exceptions), before passing a GA, although recently I've become more lenient with citation formatting.
  • For FAC, though, consistent and complete citation formatting is a must. A non-exhaustive list of things that will need to be fixed:
  • It's just Gamasutra, not Gamasutra.com.
  • Keep date format consistent. Citation 99 contains both kinds: ""GameSpy's Top 50 Games of All Time". GameSpy. Archived from the original on 2004-08-18. Retrieved March 20, 2007."
  • Combining the first two, keep how you refer to a publisher consistent. 18, for example, refers to IGN as "ign.com", whereas elsewhere it's just IGN. (Use the latter.)
  • Some citations don't include the publisher, e.g. 23 (it's Rock, Paper, Shotgun).
  • Some citation formatting is just weird (e.g. 30 [Unatco Handbook], 31 [GameFAQs]). Also, GameFAQs isn't a reliable source.
  • 57's completely unformatted aside from a URL with a title, and I'm not even sure "Blue's News" is a reliable source. And including an unreliable source like Blue's News for a statement is like getting a letter and not knowing who it's from.
  • There's a "clarification needed" tag in there somewhere.
  • There's an error for citation 32.
  • The "Organizations in Deus Ex" section is pretty crufty and can probably be merged into Setting or Plot.
    • That section was recently added before you looked at the article. It has since been removed. GamerPro64 15:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not gonna lie; there's a lot to do here. But you can do it if you exert enough effort. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EdwardH[edit]

  • Images are missing alt-text.
  • Oxford commas are sometimes being used in error; e.g., "Deus Ex was designed as a single player game, and ...". The manual of style states that these should be used in lists of three or more elements.
  • The References section uses bold pseudo-headings, which WP:Accessibility expressly forbids.

Overall, though, it's a very high-quality article. I hope this helps, EdwardH (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 31 July 2014, 01:12 UTC)----


The Get Up Kids[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I need new eyes on it, and I'd eventually like to clean it up and submit it for Featured Article status. I'd like to know any broad categories in which this article may be lacking, but particularly small details that may come up in a Featured Article review. I've been editing this article sporadically for years now, and I'm so close to it that it's hard to parse what needs work and what doesn't anymore. Thank you for your time! Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

May as well do something while I wait for comments from my own. Man, I haven't listened to these guys in months; On a Wire has some really sublime emo-pop tracks. Anyway:

  • There are some unsourced statements, including but not limited to:
  • "The Canadian Post-Hardcore band Silverstein has cited the Get Up Kids as a major influence, and covered their song Coming Clean for a split 7" with August Burns Red in 2013."
  • "On April 13, 2010 the band released the first EP Simple Science on Flyover Records."
  • "an alt-country release similar in sound to The New Amsterdams. After his second album, May Day, Pryor announced that he would be formally disbanding The New Amsterdams in favor of his solo career, concluding the band's tenure with the release of Outroduction, a B-sides recording."
  • Album titles are unitalicized in some parts, e.g. the second paragraph of the intro.
  • The intro shouldn't have citations except for controversial statements and potentially surprising statistics. I don't think the intro really needs any of its citations...
  • Except for the quote: "Years later, guitarist Jim Suptic even apologized for having the influence they did on many of the modern third-wave emo bands, commenting that "[t]he punk scene we came out of and the punk scene now are completely different. It's like glam rock now ... If this is the world we helped create, then I apologize." This should be removed or relocated elsewhere. Intros should summarize their articles, not introduce new information that appears nowhere else.
  • In that same vein, the intro should talk at least a little about their first and fourth albums. It's weird to just lurch into the second.
  • There are two dead links.
  • Why are Nate Harold and Dustin Kinsey only mentioned in the "Band members" section? This should just be a reiteration of band-member information from elsewhere in the article. At the least, find sources for them.

Haven't gone through the prose in detail, and honestly I'm not great at copyediting for FA level. If you want me to take a look, though, please fix these issues first. Tezero (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 July 2014, 21:32 UTC)----


Shahid Nadeem[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this article to GAC sometimes in the future. As no-one ever review it before and it's out of regular editing so I'd like feedback regarding everything like grammar, prose, inline citations, etc.

Thanks, Captain Assassin! «TCG» 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Overall it needs a good copyedit, but only once you're sure you've exhausted every reliable source you can (always difficult with peopl ein mid-career, I know, but newspaper searches are often good grounds in which to hunt. A few comments below for you to mull over:

Career

  • "Gen.": don't abbreviate on the first use: use the full title so people understand what it is.
  • "Shahid" It took me a moment to realise we were talking about Nadeem. Use the family name throughout, without exception
  • Zia...Zia: Should be avoided. Consider re-drafting to "During the rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, Shahid was imprisoned for his political activism in 1969, 1970 and 1979."
  • "he was forced to live out abroad": Firstly you don't need "out"; secondly a few more details would be good, if available in the sources: "forced" by who, and how? Threatened by gangsters; nationality revoked by the government; economic migrancy; or did he just think Pakistan was becoming too risky for him? I'm also not sure about the dates (1991-93): was that when he was in HK, or when he was working for Amnesty? Depending on what you can find from the sources, perhaps think about re-framing as:
  • "Because his political activity was leading Nadeem into increasing problems with the government, he moved to London in 1980., where he worked for Amnesty International until 1988. (Add information about his writing work in here—see below for my chronology point). He moved to Hong Kong between 1991 and 1993, and then to Los Angeles.[4]"
  • An idea of when he returned to Pakistan would be good, if available
  • Try and run through events chronologically. The second and third paragraphs (Nadeem has directed and written several plays for theatres, also directed and written television serials mostly for PTV.[6][7] His mostly plays are originally written in Urdu and Punjabi languages while others are adaption of English plays.[4] / He also worked for some newspapers like The Express Tribune.[8]) are summaries of his life, rather than a read through of his career. We jump from Los Angeles to him writing television work in Pakistan. There's no reference to any thoughts of him writing before, so it jars a bit.
  • His plays date back to his time in London, so you should make reference of his burgeoning writing career
  • The Express Tribune stories all seem to be from 2011, so can be dropped chronologically into the right section
  • You need to watch your formatting for italics: neither Naseem Abbas nor Akshara Theatre
  • Saadat Hassan Manto should be linked on the first reference, not lower down

Filmography and Awards

  • Nothing in these two sections carries a citation
  • "Films" & "Television": You don't need notes columns if there are no notes

Footnotes

  • Does Pakistan use the American date format (April 12, 2013)? I thought they adopted for themselves the British system (12 April 2013)? (A few Pakistan-related FAs & FLs I glanced at also use the DMY format).
  • FN4 should be formatted as The Columbia Encyclopedia of Modern Drama
  • Why is FN8, 14 and 18 tribune.com.pk, but FN 19 The Express Tribune? Be consistent throughout
  • Ditto FN16 (The Hindu) and FN 17 (thehindu.com)

Hope these help! - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions. I agree with what SchroCat says above:

  • Consider separating out different aspects of his career into different sections.
  • How do you know it was British India rather than part of an independent nation if he was born in 1947 but you can't tell any more specific?
  • Avoid short, one paragraph sections.
  • I agree with the need for a copyedit. Once that is done, come back to me and I'll review again.
  • Much potential here but needs some work.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 July 2014, 19:12 UTC)----


His Last Vow[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after the GA review, and a bit of feedback from J and the Dr (J Milburn and Template:Dr. Blofeld), both seemed positive. J advised taking it to peer review to see what needed doing before hopefully the next step is taken.

Thanks, Matty.007 09:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the article is absolutely stellar, and couldn't find any real errors. I thought in the lead, it could read "The episode received a positive reception from critics, and Mikkelsen's performance as Magnussen, in particular, was praised." Also, the line spacing after the Moftiss interview in "Critical Recpetion" section is a little wonky, almost like there are two spaces there. Beyond that, it's a very strong article.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Not nominating for FA now as going off wiki for a few months, but if I return, who knows? I think you meant Gatiss rather than the Moftiss (imagine them blended!), and changed both issues per the suggestions. Thanks for the help, Matty.007 19:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Nope, I meant Moftiss (which is the online name to refer to them as a team, but I guess that is less known that I realized). Glad to have helped. Best wishes.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 23:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 25 July 2014, 09:10 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Turkey[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible FA nomination.

Thanks, elmasmelih 20:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 16 August 2014, 20:55 UTC)----


Romania[edit]

Previous peer review

I've heavily reworked this article for some days now. I will continue working on it, but I would like somebody else's opinion, especially on its contents. Is this article missing anything? Is it featuring something too much? Is the article neutral? Does it give an adequate overview?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 August 2014, 18:16 UTC)----


Maharashtra[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… have expanded the whole article recently and planning to take it for GA level. I'll add sources to all which are not referenced. All suggestions are welcome. Thank You. :) --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
  • Will go through the article and add tags accordingly there itself. But be prepared, many cn & when? tags are gonna come. Lotsa stuff seems outdated now. (like for example there are 36 districts in Maharashtra since 1st August 2014 and not 35.)
  • With cursory glance, many images included are of Mumbai. Maybe hunting images of other places would be good. The article seems more like of Mumbai than Maharashtra if images are seen.
  • And am very glad to see Bhagwat's image. Cliché would be to use Tendulkar. So good! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the reason why I asked for peer review. Article need thorough inspection. I was so scared to use Bhagwat's image, as someone might call me Tendulkar hater just like Sharapova, LOL. I tried to find images other than which are related to Mumbai (Transportation and Education sections contains most). Will change once I find proper replacement. I am going to add citation from now onward. Please list more issues, all are welcome. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  12:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Ugog Nizdast
  • Since Dharmadhyaksha has got here first, I'll start checking from the bottom of the article. I agree with what he says....too many images of Mumbai rather than the state, better do some trimming there. I, too, will tag bomb wherever I check, so be prepared.
  • Again, too much focus on Mumbai even in the hatnotes, I rearranged them per WP:HATNOTE and trimmed down some excess few. Besides "Main" which is essential per WP:SUMMARY, I still feel there is an overload of these hatnotes, mainly the "See Also" ones.
  • There is obviously as issue of WP:DUPLINKS, consider using User:Ucucha/duplinks. If you feel this is too tedious, I don't mind doing it myself. Let me know.
Hi, Ugog Nizdast. I have removed panaroma of the stadium, meanwhile replaced images related to Mumbai. But Transport section contains some, because I didn't find any, so it was necessary. WP:DUPLINKS is totally new for me (never heard it before). It would be so nice if you take care of it. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay done this one myself. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sports" section:
    • I feel that panaroma of the stadium shouldn't be here, as there is already too much focus on Mumbai.
    • Along with Bhagwat's, why not try to add Pillay's, Tendulkar's and Gavaskar's...if possible? Maybe by decreasing the sizes and somehow fitting them together.

More to come, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Done: Covered both points.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow, only Bhagwat's pic is still there. Is it possible for you include the others? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Culture" and "Media" sections too seriously lack citations. Better import those from the subarticles they summaries and try to answer all the cn tags. Anything WP:LIKELY to be challenged will need an inline citation. If you can't find a citation and you feel that the information is not that important, I suggest you remove it.

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • "Infrastructure" is well-cited with the exception of the subsection "Energy". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually after doing several researches I found that state uses more electricity than any other state of India. So thought it would be good idea to have a subsection with particular name. But nevertheless, please suggest whether to keep it or not.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  09:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Then by all means keep it! just answer the sourcing problem. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope I'm not being too strict regarding the tagging and sourcing problem. I may be applying Criteria 2b for Good articles too much. But if you can address all of them, it would make your upcoming GA review much smoother. Tell me if you have any problems regarding this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 August 2014, 14:38 UTC)----


Mississauga[edit]


I want to run this article for GA sometime, but I first want some more tips to improve the article. Mistakes are easier to identify by another person. I want suggestions mostly on the references, and the coverage. Any other info is welcome too.

Thanks, TheQ Editor (Talk) 21:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 August 2014, 21:29 UTC)----


History[edit]

Death of Osama bin Laden[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to push this piece of important information in recent history to FAC.

Thanks, Forbidden User (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. At FAC, the first question you'll probably get is "Have you notified the major contributors?" ... so it might be best to go ahead and notify them now that this is at peer review. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 August 2014, 15:23 UTC)----


Franklin Pierce[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… Designate and I intend to take it to FAC and we'd like to do as much of the heavy lifting in advance as possible.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. The lead is great. I did some copyediting on it per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 August 2014, 08:45 UTC)----


33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because when I nominated it for GA, one reader (who did not initiate review; he only gave it a quick read-over) said it was far too long and "overly detailed," without giving any specific reasons for his assessment. Other readers disagreed, and I just wanted to get a consensus opinion on it. I'm open to any reasonable opinions or suggestions for improvement! Thanks, Ecjmartin (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Ecjm, I've advertised the review over on the main Milhist talk page and on the Wikiproject Alabama talk page, so hopefully you should get a few reviews. Unfortunately, I don't get online much during the week, so I probably won't check in again until next weekend, but I will come back then and depending on how it is going, post a couple of suggestions. Good luck with taking the article further, and thanks for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much!! Your help and interest are greatly appreciated, and I look forward to hearing from you again soon. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A particularly tough image review[edit]

This is probably in excess of what's the minimal acceptable standard in a few places, but I think it's worth trying to get the best article possible, and part of that is good images. So, with that in mind:

  • File:Samuel Adams 33rd Alabama.jpg - Date is wrong; that needs fixed. File is very small, but Confederate soldiers are harder to find good photography of. Sharing the name of a founding father is not going to help when looking for other images, either. Likely as good as possible, if date is fixed, and information tidied slightly.
Yes check.svg Done. Got the date fixed, as best I could. Check it out if you would, and let me know if anything else needs doing, here. As you said, this isn't very good, but it's probably the best we can do.
Yes check.svg Done. Just did it.
Yes check.svg Done Also, Will post on your talk page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. Godot wrote back and said he's backlogged and will need at least a week before he can check with the SI. Told him to take any time he needs; if he can't find anything better, we'll probably go with this (if that's okay by you) unless I stumble across a better one.
  • File:SAMWoodACW.jpg Terrible image, but half an hour searching the Library of Congress with various terms didn't find much.
X mark.svg Not done. I found one other image, but I'm not sure this one is much better than the one we already have. Take a look and tell me what you think: http://www.chattanoogacwrt.org/201003.htm. I'll mark this as "not done" until we decide.
Yes check.svg Done. Take a look, and tell me what you think.
Yes check.svg Done. Check my work, if you would, and tell me if this is acceptable. This is all still pretty new to me, but I think I got what you suggested.
Yes check.svg Done. Per your statement, here.
Yes check.svg Done. I didn't find anything better either, and figured I was lucky to have stumbled across this one.
Yes check.svg Done. Took me a couple of tries, but that was my own fault, LOL...

Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Part 2

I've noticed I've missed a few, so I've added them in here, and finished the article.

Yes check.svg Done. Per your statement, here.
Yes check.svg Done. Per your statement, here.
X mark.svg Not done. Standing by, per your statement.
Yes check.svg Done. Agreed. I felt really lucky to find this one, and that he was id'd as being in the 33rd.
Yes check.svg Done. Thank you!
  • File:Rosecrans at Stones River.jpg Ugly crop; bad colour balance, needs restoration, taken from an earlier scan with poor colour fidelity, but a better one has been done since. I'll push this one into my restoration queue.
X mark.svg Not done. Standing by, per your statement.
Yes check.svg Done. Per your statement here.
X mark.svg Not done. I had to LOL on this one, as I am the one who did the very bad crop-job on this one and otherwise posted it. I couldn't (and still can't) get to the image you mentioned, as my computer won't let me click on it to download it--I'm not very good at this downloading/documentation thing, so I'll have to plead "guilty" on this one... So where do we go from here with this one?
  • File:Battle Ringgold Gap Drawing.jpg No source link; Probably available at higher resolution if I find it.
  • File:Cleburne_Monument_Ringgold_GA.jpg Not terrible; could use rotation. Lots of noise, though, so it'd be nice to retake this - did you know that, so far as I'm aware, we have never had a featured picture of a memorial from the American Civil War from the Confederate states? The ACW is far too major of a part of America's history to leave out its commemoration.
X mark.svg Not done. Not sure here if you want to try to do something with this, given what you said here; if not, we can label it "done" if you agree. With this being a rather new monument, it'll probably be difficult to find a photo we can use apart from this one, unless someone happens to take a good one and posts it to Commons. And I did not know that--though before we started here, I didn't even know photos were "features" on WP! You learn something new every day!
Yes check.svg Done. Per your statement, here.
Yes check.svg Done. Per your statement here, unless we stumble onto something better.
Yes check.svg Done. Per your statement here.
Yes check.svg Done. Not sure what we can do here; like you, I wish we could have a better provenance for this photo. But since the guy claims it's his intellectual property and has released it unconditionally, do we just take him at his word and use it, or not? I'm not sure. I'm marking it as "done," but if you disagree, feel free to change the marking and/or delete the image altogether. You're a lot better-versed at this stuff than I am, for sure...
Thanks, Adam! This is awesome--I'm at work right now, but I'll get on this later this evening, and see what I can do. I deeply appreciate your help and candor here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries whatsoever! I mean, obviously, I'm going a step farther; I love how well-illustrated the article is. And, obviously, just because I say something is a bad picture doesn't mean that we'd actually be able to get a better one. There are cases where an image is so terrible that it pulls down the article's professionalism; but it has to be pretty terrible, and even the worst image in the article - the Lowrey - is a borderline case, probably adding more than it detracts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and labeled those photos we've already pretty much decided on keeping as "done;" that way, I can pass them over on the list easily as I come back to this over the next few days. The "not done" labels are for those we've started on but not yet finished; all the others are awaiting initial action--which should be coming over the next few days. Thanks again for all your help; you've been amazing!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Might be a little slow - A WWII veteran, who served on the USS Mahan, created an FA on Mahan-class destroyers. This is creating a rather sudden need for me to get off my arse and work on very specific images. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, my friend. I'm moving rather slow on this myself, so it's definitely no problem. I appreciate all of the help you have given. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, great work with the article. I have a couple of suggestions if you want to take it a bit further:
  • The following sentences probably need references/citations as they currently appear to be uncited:
  • "General Wood's brigade became separated from the other attacking units, and quickly found itself on its own, attacking the Federals on high ground against overwhelming odds."
Yes check.svg Done. Added reference.
  • "With Chattanooga now out of danger, the new Union commander could turn his attention to Bragg's army."
Yes check.svg Done. Deleted this sentence; it's not really needed, as it states the obvious.
  • "He would lead the Army of Tennessee throughout the first portion of the coming Atlanta Campaign."
Yes check.svg Done. Deleted this sentence, for the same reason as given above.
  • "Moving into the Dallas area on May 26, the Federals attacked Johnston's right flank at Pickett's Mill on May 27, where the 33rd Alabama would once more find itself in the center of the action."
Yes check.svg Done. Deleted the portion of this sentence that begins with: "...where the 33rd Alabama..."; provided a citation for the remainder.
  • "The regiment stopped at a nearby creek to fill their canteens, which gave the Federal defenders time to regroup and bring up artillery and reinforcements; these blasted the 33rd as they emerged from the creek valley and charged through a field and up a hill toward their lines."
Yes check.svg Done. Added reference.
  • New recruits would soon swell the regiment's numbers again, however, and it would return to battle many more times before the end of the war.
Yes check.svg Done. Deleted sentence; as with the others I mentioned, it states the obvious.

AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest converting this to a footnote:
  • "A map of the Jonesborough battlefield may be seen here [3]." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Moved to footnote.
Thanks, Rupert! I'll get to work on this tonight or this weekend. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your efforts with the article. When the peer review closes, you might consider asking for a copy edit from someone over at the WP:GOCE. After that, if you are happy with how you are travelling, a Military History A-Class Review might be your next port of call. (I am hoping that a few more people will stop by and contribute to the peer review, though, first as this will help set you up for success later.) Anyway, take care and have a great weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Review by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Very high level of detail, obviously you have put a lot of work in here. The result, though, is an absolutely enormous article of 15856 words (or 94K) which is well beyond the readable prose size of about 60K. There are a few things you could do, including condensing the summaries of other articles, or WP:SPINOUT the article into two or more articles. In general, I consider there are a lot of quotes whose content could be summarised more succinctly in prose without the need to quote someone.
  • You have a large Bibliography, so I suggest you use Template:Refbegin and Template:Refend to reduce the text size.
  • The refs are not templated using Template:Cite book etc, I suggest you template them, as they will then render in the standard way.
  • Some of the refs don't have a numerical identifier, DOI, ISBN, OCLC. You can get the book ones at Worldcat, the journal ones should be available online as well
  • use an endash with 200-300 in the Night Assault... section and the Chickamauga one as well, also the page range in the Morton McInvale citation in the Fire and maneuver section and the date range in the The Union Army: Cyclopedia of Battles citation in the Spring Hill section
  • there is quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKING, generally link once in the lead and once (at first mention) in the body
  • the external link checker says there is one dead link, and a few others which are redirects. Suggest you use permalinks
  • the citation style is very clunky, and results in a huge citation list. I suggest you use shortened footnote "sfn" citations, which will eliminate duplicated citations and reduce the space the citations take up.
  • watch for sandwiching of text between images on both the right and left
  • I suggest moving the non-historical/chronological "regimental details" such as the flag, uniforms, etc to the bottom, and starting the article after the lead with the recruiting, then working through the war in a chronological order
  • I suggest adding alt text to all the images. This is for accessibility reasons for vision impaired readers.
  • support the idea of a GOCE copyedit
  • the lead needs to summarise all the important aspects of the article. Given its size, I don't believe it does that now.
  • I think the image licenses need some close attention, but that is not my forte so I haven't looked at them.
  • I would make the maps a standard size, the smaller ones are too small, even on my enormous screen

Great work so far, well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 9 August 2014, 21:08 UTC)----


Rhythm and Praise music[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first time writing a Wikipedia article. I need to know if I've listed adequate citations and references. I'd like to know if I had made an easy transition from one paragraph to another paragraph, or from one section to another.

Thanks, Kindlerashod (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 August 2014, 19:30 UTC)----


Æthelstan A[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get this article at least to GA and I would like feedback on getting it to that level.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 July 2014, 19:34 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Endometrial cancer[edit]

I've been working on this one for awhile and am looking for a mid-development/pre-GAN review. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well done for tackling this topic, Keilana. Some general advice and pointers. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I would expand all technical terms (e.g. pyometra) on first use. (The pyometra article is mostly about veterinary medicine, by the way!)
      •  Done
    • I would move lifetime risk from "Risk factors" to "Epidemiology".
      •  Done
    • The "Pathophysiology" section is exclusively about molecular biology but doesn't say a lot about how this leads to proliferation, invasion, metastasis. For the lay leader this may be confusing. I am not sure how much there is to say about the tumour microenvironment, but it might need covering.
      •  Done, I think.
    • The term "evaluate" is rarely used in British English and perhaps an Atlantically neutral term might work better.
      •  Done
    • Would the "classification" section be more effective if it was presented in the form of a table?
      • @Jfdwolff: I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I did write a brief intro paragraph explaining the difference in tumors. What kind of table were you thinking? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The same applies to the FIGO staging.
      •  Done
    • In the "surgery" section, the reason for performing mastectomy in type II cancers is not explained. Presumably this is prophylactic?
      • Yes it is.  Done
    • In "add on therapy", which tumor marker is associated with endometrial cancer? Is this a reference to Ca125?
      • Yes it is but that information got shuffled elsewhere and makes much more sense now.
    • I would integrate "Complications of treatment" with discussions about the respective treatments.
      •  Done
    • "Treatment of recurrences" is technically palliation rather than cure, and perhaps this should be emphasised.
      •  Done
    • Some of the references are not secondary sources (e.g. much of the "Quality of life" subsection).
      • I think I got them all.

Thank you so very much for this review! It was incredibly helpful. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 27 July 2014, 01:11 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Eclogue 4[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it (all of it), and I'd like to get someone else's opinion on it. Originally, I was just going to research the Christian interpretation of it and add it to the main article on the Eclogues, but eventually it grew so large that I decided to make it its own article. Some of the sourcing was rather complex and a little bit arcane to read and comprehend, so I'd really appreciate someone checking on what I've written and seeing if I've done the source material justice (I'd be more than willing to provide the original texts if anyone needs them; all of them can be found on Google Books, through JSTOR, or a simple Google search). I'm not too concerned about any sourcing issues in the Christian interpretation section, since the source I used for that section was fairly easy to follow. I'm more concerned with the "Synopsis", "Meaning", and "Textual Criticism" sections.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment - the Rose citation is incorrect, what is the correct publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this mix-up? If so, it should be all better.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 August 2014, 21:41 UTC)----


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I intend to nominate it for featured status soon, but I currently have an article nominated for featured status already, so I thought it would be a good idea to get some comments from other editors on this article while I wait for my previous featured nomination to be closed.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 14 August 2014, 15:02 UTC)----


Charles Hamilton (rapper)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review. I have not personally made many major contributions but I have watched it grow thanks to a number of editors over the course of a few months, I think a peer review will be helpful to gain an independent outside view of the article and provide advice for pushing the standard of the article up to eventually achieve good article status.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 August 2014, 08:31 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it go to FL status.

Thank you, LADY LOTUSTALK 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Lady, I didn't see this was one of yours when I edited previously, or that was at PR. There are a few things that jump to my eye, and I'll comment on them fully very shortly for you. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead

  • Four paras max only. (You could merge paras 3, 4 and 5 quite happily). Yes check.svg Done I combined 3 and 4 together, figured 5 was about her theatre so it could stay separate. That ok?
  • Separating out stage and screen is always ok! :) - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You'll need to add cites to anything in the lead that isn’t mentioned in the tables Yes check.svg Done

Tables

  • You need to add column and row headers to pass WP:access. Have a look at a terrible FL by some pain of an editor ;) You'll see here how you'll need to put scope="col" on each of the columns, and scope="row" at the beginning of each row. Yes check.svg Done Schro, usually it's just the title of a film that gets the "row" right? Or do I need to literally put it on every row? See what I've done already and tell me if I need more.
  • It goes at the start of the row (so computer readers for the partially sighted know when a row of new information will start). I've tweaked the films list, not the others tho... - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Something is going wrong with your sort on the films, TV programmes, and stage shows column. {{sort|Big Sleep|''[[The Big Sleep (1946 film)|The Big Sleep]]''}} should work OK for you, with the same format throughout. Yes check.svg Done Should be anyway
  • Still a couple out of sync here: A Conversation with Gregory Peck and A Star for Two sort on A. Yes check.svg Done
  • You'll need to sort the roles column by surname Yes check.svg Done - with your help :)
  • No probs: I've done it for the first two (Rose Cullen & Vivian Sternwood Rutledge), so the same format runs through.
  • You don't need to sort the ref column. Yes check.svg Done

Non-FL requirements to think about

  • Your call (not an FL requirement), but I tend to heads the refs column as {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}}, which explains the term on a hovering mouse.Yes check.svg Done
  • Another non-FL requirement to consider is to centre the refs by having | style="text-align: center;" | at the start of the refs line. I find it looks better on the screen, but you may think otherwise and it's your call. Yes check.svg Done

Refs

  • You need to sort the caps in the refs (some are, some aren't). What do you mean?
  • Sorry - that wasn't clear at all and I confused myself when I looked at it again! If you look at use of caps in FNS 1-3 "Lauren Bacall Has Died at Age 89" uses caps differently from the sentance use on FNs 4, 15, 18, 29, 39 and 41 "Legendary Hollywood actress Lauren Bacall, sultry star of screen and stage, dies at age 89 from stroke". I think the MOS has the first one right. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Lol it's ok It should be Yes check.svg Done if this is what you meant.
  • FN21 Doesn't need shouty caps Yes check.svg Done
  • You need to change the publisher field to work like this ("publisher" is the company behind the works, and italicises the works properly). Yes check.svg Done

Hope this helps! - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Two further areas for you to look at:

  • Firstly, we no longer open the leads of lists with the words "This is a list" (or similar), as it's fairly obvious what it is. "Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) was an American actress of film, television and stage." is the more common format - or a variation along those lines, at least. You also mention Hawks changing her name: I would leave that out, partly because you don't mention what her name was originally, and partly because it's not really needed in the filmography - much better that stays in the biography of the main article. If you would rather keep it in there, add a footnote to tell people what the name was, so they don't flick over the main article and don't come back! Yes check.svg Done
  • The only other thing you may want to do (again, your call) is to add one or two images from WikiCommons oppostite the TV and stage tables. Yes check.svg Done

You'll need to do something about the first point for FLC; the second is your choice. If you're happy with the content, then I think it's strong enough to go to FLC as it is. As a delegate I rarely support things that go through (except to nudge them over the line), but I think I'll certianly make an exception with this one! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for all your input and help! I really appreciate it! This is the first article I've ever tried to get to FL so we'll see what happens. I think with what I had and your help plus anything else someone wants to throw in would be a great FL! :) LADY LOTUSTALK 14:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure! It should be good to put through: if it was one of "my" lists, I'd be pitching it in there about now as it's certainly strong enough as it stands. There may be a couple of minor things people pick up on, but not too much, I shouldn't imagine. How could anyone not like a page that has that image at the top?! - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I know right?! :) LADY LOTUSTALK 17:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • I'm thinking this article could be retitled "Lauren Bacall filmography" Yes check.svg Done
  • Agree. The current title is a bit ambiguous. Cassiantotalk 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Would "Lauren Bacall on film and stage" not have been more accurate? Cassiantotalk 22:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What sort of unintelligible and unhelpful answer is that; either it is, or it isn't. Lady Lotus, you will clearly need to fix this bad move before hitting FLC, otherwise you will run the risk of scoring opposes. Cassiantotalk 18:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@SchroCat:, what are your thoughts on the title? @Cassianto: what "bad move" are you referring to? LADY LOTUSTALK 19:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I am referring to the ill-judged move by SNUGGUMS which resulted in this article being given an inaccurate title. I would have also expected such a move to have been discussed first, but that's a different matter. I agree with it being given SchroCat's suggested title below. Cassiantotalk 20:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lady, I missed the change on this. I'm not sure it's an improvement and yes, someone is bound to oppose on the basis of the title: it's not a filmography as you've got more than just films listed. As it includes stage and TV work too then I think the Lauren Bacall on screen and stage format is probably your best bet—unless you can come up with a better format of title! – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Better? LADY LOTUSTALK 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Cassiantotalk 20:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I was simply using "filmography" as a basis of other pages listing film/television appearances. The page came across as one of those when I read it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • They are really not needed when there are only so few fields that would be included. It also has the effect of squashing the photo too much. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of the columns, the way it looks with the colors being too much and it doesn't give a whole lot of info. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the main Lauren Bacall page, I see that the infobox photo indicates the photo was taken in the 1940s. That should be noted here since it is the same photo used.
  • As the source info in the file has "unknown date", I think to date it would be OR, as it is on the main page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case, there shouldn't be a date range for the infobox on her main article, either Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ...delete it at your peril; go on, I dare you! ;) Cassiantotalk 20:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I never changed it because of the reason Schro gave. It doesn't say anything about being in the 40s and to say so would be a guess, I didn't want to give an inaccurate guess so I just left it. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the infobox. Don't worry, I was joking ;) Cassiantotalk 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The first two sentences could be merged to something like "Lauren Bacall (1924 – 2014) was an American actress who was from The Golden Age of Hollywood, along with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth".
  • You can link "golden age of Hollywood to this. "The Golden Age of Hollywood" is a bit magaziney. Cassiantotalk 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That works too
What is linked now "Golden Age of Hollywood" redirects to "Classical Hollywood cinema". I did combine the first two sentences together though. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I realize what "She was also trained to make her voice lower, deeper, and sexier" is trying to say, but "sexier" is POV. Some detail on what she did with vocal training would be useful.
  • Yes check.svg Done sort of. I couldn't find a whole lot about HOW she lowered it, just that she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Lotus (talkcontribs)
  • I meant why or what she took such lessons for Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • If available, I would include detail on any roles that won her major awards such as Golden Globes or Academy Awards. Yes check.svg Done
  • Since the "radio" section is so short, I wonder how much it really merits to be on this article if it can't be converted to tables like the other sections aside from lead. Yes check.svg Done since being removed
    • I agree with this. Was this performance that notable to warrant an inclusion into this article, let alone its own section? Cassiantotalk 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify what SchroCat was trying to say on italics, the "work" field automatically italicizes terms while the "publisher" field does not:
I knew about these since I had asked you about them previously. Do you see any that are or aren't italicized when they should be? LADY LOTUSTALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. The following need to be italicized: FN1, FN2, FN3, FN9, FN10, FN12, FN18, FN24, FN28, FN32, FN48, and FN49. The following should NOT be italicized: FN8, FN19, FN22, FN27, FN29, FN33, FN36, FN37, FN44, and FN45. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done I switched the non-italicized titles to "publisher" and left the ones that needed to be italicized as "work" since that parameter automatically italicizes them
  • New York Post is not a reliable source, and I'm not too sure about "LemonWade" or "Bold Venture". I removed LemonWade and Bold Venture was removed when the Radio section was deleted. But I can't find anything saying the NY Post is unreliable. Was there a discussion about it not being reliable?
  • Remove "Online" from "Hamptons Online"- we don't need to know that this is the online edition of a print publication Yes check.svg Done
  • As a general note, observe the linking of terms within refs. I recommend linking all when they have pages or only first instances (i.e. linking the first Los Angeles Times ref when there are multiple articles used from that source) Yes check.svg Done I think, I've tried to remove all the duplicate links when I found them
  • Include roles in all fields, I see some missing. Yes check.svg Done to the best of my ability, some of her roles she didn't have a name.

Hope this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much @SNUGGUMS:, I always appreciate your feedback. After this discussion, is there anything else you can see that needs improving or you think I could go to FLC with it? LADY LOTUSTALK 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure, happy to help :). I'll make some tweaks later and let you know when it's ready for FLC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • "Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) was an American actress who was among the actresses of the Golden Age of Hollywood..." Two things:
    • The article starts by talking about the actress and not the subject in hand, her career.
      • How would you start it? Most articles even about their work starts out by saying what they did.
        • I would say "The American actress Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) performed in many mediums of entertainment, including film, theatre and radio. Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, she was one of the most prolific performers during the Golden Age of Hollywood" or something like that. This isn't an essential fix, but I think starting out in a different way would separate this article from all of the others which all start off in the same, boring way. Cassiantotalk 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
          • How about "American actress Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) performed in film, television and theatre. Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, Bacall was one of the leading ladies during the Golden Age of Hollywood" ? LADY LOTUSTALK 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Repetitive use of "actress" and "actresses" Yes check.svg Done
  • "She started her career..." Who? Bacall, Monroe or Hayworth? Yes check.svg Done
  • "She started her career as a teenage fashion model, when she appeared on the cover of Harper's Bazaar and was discovered by Howard Hawks' wife Nancy..." I don't think the comma adds much. Yes check.svg Done
  • "She was also trained to make her voice lower, and deeper due to Hawks' suggestion since she naturally had a high-pitched, nasal voice." Two things:
    • Again, the comma is misplaced and would work better by using just the conjunction. Yes check.svg Done
    • The sentence feels a bit awkward. I would say "She was trained to make her voice lower and deeper as Hawks' disliked her naturally high-pitched, nasal voice."
Kinda done because I didn't find anything about him NOT liking it, just that he though it would be better deeper. I think to say he disliked it would be OR. I just took the part out about him completely and reworded it to "She was trained to make her voice lower and deeper by shouting Shakespeare for hours every day as she naturally had a high-pitched and nasal voice". Better?
The Shakespeare claim is an interesting one, thanks. I fiddled with the prose somewhat, but yes this is a lot better. Cassiantotalk 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Her first film appearance was with Humphrey Bogart in the 1944 film To Have and Have Not." -- New para requires a new noun and not a pronoun continuation. Yes check.svg Done
  • "She later married Bogart in 1945..." -- We don't need "later" and the year; one or the other should suffice. In fact, I would just say "the following year" seeing as we are only in 1944 in the previous sentence. Yes check.svg Done
  • "She also appeared in Murder on the Orient Express (1976) and The Shootist (1976)." -- who did, Bacall or Wood? Yes check.svg Done
  • "In later years, she appeared in the films..." -- New para, new noun. Yes check.svg Done
  • Bafta Award, Academy Award I repetitive. I would delete the first "award". Yes check.svg Done
  • "Her television work included appearances in episodes..." -- "in episodes" is redundant. Yes check.svg Done
  • Is it really necessary to say "Bacall in...", "Bacall in...", "Bacall in...", in the image captions? The second one even has hare picture and name in the screen shot! Yes check.svg Done
  • Amália Traïda and 1955 Motion Picture Theatre Celebration in the tables are missing a reference, why? Yes check.svg Done added ref to Amália Traïda, removed Motion Picture Theatre because I couldn't find a RS for it.
  • The image caption in the TV section needs to be looked at. There are three people in that image with Bacall being the obvious, and Bogart correctly described as being in the middle. Do we need "right" for Fonda's location within the picture seeing as he is the only person left? Yes check.svg Done
  • Compare this to the next image in the stage section and we have no locations for persons depicted. Yes check.svg Done

I just saw your question to SNUGGUMS asking if this is ready for FLC. I'm sorry, but I don't think it is, hence my review here. I think after this then it will be ready though. I will go through this again later today to make sure everything has been caught. Cassiantotalk 12:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, please go through it again, I just made the changes you suggested, so check again :) LADY LOTUSTALK 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 August 2014, 20:26 UTC)----


Tom Hanks filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to submit this for FLC soon. The main things I want feedback on is how well the lead reads, whether it is comprehensive and that it avoids peacock words and unsourced claims. I would also appreciate a reference check to make sure everything is sourced according to WP:RS.

Thanks, Cowlibob (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 8 August 2014, 14:46 UTC)----


Akshay Kumar filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was withdrawn from FLC owing to quality of prose used in the lead section. I intend to nominate it again once the prose quality is up to the mark. All comments are welcome. Thanks, Skr15081997 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 8 August 2014, 14:43 UTC)----


List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut[edit]

I've done a major copy-edit to the list and I want to take this to a featured list status. Constructive comments and suggestions from reviewers at peer review will polish the list.

Thanks, —Zia Khan 01:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment – If you were to take this to FL, List of Pakistan Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut (currently an FLC), clearly overlaps with that. Vensatry (ping) 12:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment – From a brief scan, I see that there is no large traditional list here. I understand that this mainly is a summary of other lists, but comprehensiveness is a challenge when we're not even mentioning most of the relevant players. One avenue that you could pursue is the creation of a summary table, as in Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster. That would at least provide a tabluar element, while providing a convenient place to put links to the various subarticles. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. Appreciated! —Zia Khan 03:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • You might want to explain/link/expand "permanent Test status" as to the non-initiated, this is jargon.
  • "comprises forty-five of them being taken" just "comprises forty-five taken" etc.
  • When I finally get the list, I'm disappointed, the list doesn't really exist. I'd like to see all 141 here. Otherwise this is a directory of links to other articles. And some don't even exist.
  • "Six, thirteen and thirty-six bowlers from four, five and nine different nations respectively, have taken eight, seven and six wickets in a Test innings on debut." bizarre phrasing. Virtually impossible to follow.

I think I'll stop here, I don't think I like the structure and my penultimate point means that if unresolved, I wouldn't be able to support this at FLC. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 August 2014, 01:42 UTC)----


Miley Cyrus filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know whether it can be nominated for featured list or it isn't up to the mark as of now.

Thanks, CyrockingSmiler (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 July 2014, 17:11 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]